XPost: comp.theory, sci.math   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 12/22/2025 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 12/22/25 10:20 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >> On 12/22/2025 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >>> On 12/22/25 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> On 12/22/2025 8:47 PM, Python wrote:   
   >>>>> Le 23/12/2025 à 01:01, olcott a écrit :   
   >>>>>> On 6/23/2004 9:34 PM, Peter Olcott wrote:   
   >>>>>>>>> PREMISES:   
   >>>>>>>>> (1) The Halting Problem was specified in  such a way that a   
   >>>>>>>>> solution   
   >>>>>>>>> was defined to be impossible.   
   >>>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>>> No, it wasn't. It's a perfectly legitimate mathematical problem.   
   >>>>>>>> It's   
   >>>>>>>> not even obvious that it wouldn't have an effective solution at   
   >>>>>>>> first   
   >>>>>>>> sight.   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> function LoopIfYouSayItHalts (bool YouSayItHalts):   
   >>>>>>>     if YouSayItHalts () then   
   >>>>>>>         while true do {}   
   >>>>>>>      else   
   >>>>>>>         return false;   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>>> Does this program Halt?   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> This is utterly asinine! The name of a function or of an argument   
   >>>>> does not carry any semantic value.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> func is_even(int n):   
   >>>>>     if n % 2 == 0 then   
   >>>>>         return false   
   >>>>>     else   
   >>>>>         return true   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> The function shouldn't be named is_even, anyway there is nothing   
   >>>>> wrong with this function /per se/.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You erased a key aspect of the context.   
   >>>> This is my first work on the halting problem   
   >>>> 21 years ago.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> Which shows that you never knew what you doing.   
   >>   
   >> You can spout that off as baseless dogmatic   
   >> rhetoric yet cannot show that the essence of   
   >> what I am saying is less than infallibly correct.   
   >>   
   >   
   > The fact that your arguement isn't based on the form that a decider   
   > works on it enough to show your ignorance.   
   >   
   > Are you so dumb you can't see that?   
   >   
   > THe DEFINITION of a halt decider is that it is given the description/   
   > representaiton of a program and its input, and is to decide on what that   
   > program will do.   
   >   
   > There is NOTHING problemstic of predecting the behavior of your   
   > functions for any argument it is given.   
   >   
   > Your argument is that you didn't tell it the right things, but the halt   
   > decider doesn't tell the program it is examining anything, the input to   
   > that program is part of the input to the decider.   
   >   
   > Thus, you are just showing your ignorance.   
   >   
   > THe fact that 20 years later you still don't understand much better   
   > shows how learning disabled you really are.   
      
   No this is just you not bothering to pay 100% complete   
   attention to the exact words of the title of this thread.   
      
   Sometimes I must remind LLMs to pay 100% complete   
   attention. They immediately take corrective action.   
   People never do because they only care about rebuttal   
   even if this makes them liars.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott

   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make 
   
   "true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"
   
   reliably computable.

   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation
   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)