XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.lang.prolog   
   XPost: comp.software-eng   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 1/7/2026 5:49 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 07/01/2026 06:44, olcott wrote:   
   >> All deciders essentially: Transform finite string   
   >> inputs by finite string transformation rules into   
   >> {Accept, Reject} values.   
   >>   
   >> The counter-example input to requires more than   
   >> can be derived from finite string transformation   
   >> rules applied to this specific input thus the   
   >> Halting Problem requires too much.   
      
   > In a sense the halting problem asks too much: the problem is proven to   
   > be unsolvable. In another sense it asks too little: usually we want to   
   > know whether a method halts on every input, not just one.   
   >   
   > Although the halting problem is unsolvable, there are partial solutions   
   > to the halting problem. In particular, every counter-example to the   
   > full solution is correctly solved by some partial deciders.   
   >   
      
   *if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*   
   *if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*   
   *if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*   
   *if undecidability is correct then truth itself is broken*   
      
   When an input D is defined to do the opposite of   
   whatever its decider H reaports input D is semantically   
   unsound.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2026 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-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)