From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 7/4/2025 8:33 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 04 Jul 2025 07:34:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 7/4/2025 2:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-03 22:11:45 +0000, olcott said:

On 7/2/2025 1:53 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-07-01 11:46:11 +0000, olcott said:

It is relevant to the halting problem because no input to a halt
decider can possibly do the opposite of whatever its halt decider
decides.

Only because it is not simulated.

Although it is called a description that term is inaccurate.
It leads people to believe that 98% of exactly what it does is close
enough. That DD() *DOES NOT DO* what DD correctly simulated by HHH
does is a key detail *THAT ALWAYS ESCAPES THEM*

What HHH correctly or otherwise simulates is merely an implementation
detail.

It is a detail that defines a partial halt decider that makes the "do
the opposite" code unreachable.

Sounds like a bug.

What matters is the beahviour DD specifies.

The behavior that an input specifies is only correctly measured by
correctly simulating this input.

No, what code does when executed. Nobody cares what any random simulator does, especially when it is known that
no simulator can simulate past
a call to itself.

This proves that HHH does simulate itself simulating DDD https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf

We can know that HHH does emulate itself emulating
DDD because the first instruction of HHH [00001606]
is reached once when invoked in main() (page 38)
and again (page 47) after DDD simulated by HHH calls
HHH(DDD) [000021de] (page 45).

That would make all programs the same when you prefix
them with that call.

It is actually has 100% of all of the details that the machine code of >>>> DD has. The input to HHH(DD) *SPECIFIES*
100% of every detail of the exactly behavior *OF THIS INPUT*

In particular, it specifies whether the direct execution of DD halts or
not.

Partial halt deciders only compute the mapping from their inputs to the
actual behavior that this input actually specifies.

Which HHH doesn't do.

A halt decider cannot compute the mapping from its own caller or its own
self. That is just not the way that computation fundamentally works.

Nor does it need to, it gets the code of its caller and itself as input.

Other aspects of the behaivour are not relevant
(but are specified anyway).

DDD simulated by HHH according to the actual semantics of the C
programming language GETS STUCK IN RECURSIVE SIMULATION.

That is why simulation alone does not solve the halting problem.

I have never been trying to solve the halting problem.

Oh goodie.

That requires a computer program that is omniscient.

Calculating the parity of a number also does.

All that I have done is refute the conventional halting problem proof
technique. Once this is accepted as correct I will move on to the next
best proof after that.

Which one is that? And what is your goal if not refuting the halting
theorem?

To conquer each proof of the HP one at a time.

The reason that I am doing this is that people
have a fundamentally incorrect understanding
about how truth itself actually works.

Because of these misconceptions there has been no
objective way to divide truth from well crafted lies.

This is causing the rise of the fourth Reich and
the destruction of the planet through climate change.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/4/2025 8:33 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 04 Jul 2025 07:34:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:

[ .... ]

All that I have done is refute the conventional halting problem proof
technique.

You have not. You've not even come close.

Once this is accepted as correct I will move on to the next best
proof after that.

Which one is that? And what is your goal if not refuting the halting
theorem?

To conquer each proof of the HP one at a time.

You're a clueless fool. You don't understand in the abstract what a
proof is, and you don't understand this particular proof.

The reason that I am doing this is that people have a fundamentally
incorrect understanding about how truth itself actually works.

You're a clueless fool. You yourself have no correct understanding about truth. In particular, when a mathematical result is proven by a
mathematical proof, it is true. The proof you delude yourself you have "conquered" is a valid proof. It was formulated by mathematicians much brighter than either of us, and is an exceptionally simple and clear
proof. Any reasonably bright undergraduate can grasp it in a few
minutes.

Because of these misconceptions there has been no objective way to
divide truth from well crafted lies.

A great deal of what you post on this newsgroup is lies, though I
wouldn't call them well crafted. You simply have no well developed
notion of what truth is.

There has never been an objective way to differentiate truth from
falsehood in politics and general discourse. There is, though, in the
field of mathematics and, to a lesser degree, science. You reject that objective way, however, confusing truth with what you would like to be
true.

This is causing the rise of the fourth Reich and
the destruction of the planet through climate change.

You are (deliberately?) confusing different types of truth. Mathematics
and science are no defence against politicians like failed artists and
failed business men. Unfortunately.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 7/5/2025 7:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/4/2025 8:33 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 04 Jul 2025 07:34:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:

[ .... ]

All that I have done is refute the conventional halting problem proof
technique.

You have not. You've not even come close.

That you do not even know the details of my work gives
you no basis to refute it.

void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}

No more gaslighting me that DDD simulated by HHH
according to the semantics of the C programming
language can possibly reach its own simulated "return"
statement final halt state.

Four different Chatbots were able to immediately figure
this out on their own.

Once this is accepted as correct I will move on to the next best
proof after that.

Which one is that? And what is your goal if not refuting the halting
theorem?

To conquer each proof of the HP one at a time.

You're a clueless fool. You don't understand in the abstract what a
proof is, and you don't understand this particular proof.

The reason that I am doing this is that people have a fundamentally
incorrect understanding about how truth itself actually works.

You're a clueless fool. You yourself have no correct understanding about truth.

All you have is rhetoric and ad hominem that is entirely
bereft of any supporting reasoning. No one even tries to
point out any actual mistake even when repeatedly dared
to do this.

In particular, when a mathematical result is proven by a
mathematical proof, it is true.

<sarcasm>
Sure because all mathematicians that created these proofs
are inherently infallible. If God himself pointed out any
error this would be blasphemy.

The proof of this is that Naive set theory is still infallible
and ZFC is just some head game that has no actual value at all.
</sarcasm>

The proof you delude yourself you have
"conquered" is a valid proof. It was formulated by mathematicians much brighter than either of us, and is an exceptionally simple and clear
proof. Any reasonably bright undergraduate can grasp it in a few
minutes.

You can't even correctly point out one single detail of any
actual mistake that I made that would invalidate my proof.

Because of these misconceptions there has been no objective way to
divide truth from well crafted lies.

A great deal of what you post on this newsgroup is lies, though I
wouldn't call them well crafted. You simply have no well developed
notion of what truth is.

There has never been an objective way to differentiate truth from
falsehood in politics and general discourse.

Yet.
*What I am proposing is a giant expansion of the syllogism*
Every meaning of every natural language word is mathematically
formalized using an extension to Montague Grammar. These are
all in a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy. This creates
a finite list of all of the basis facts of the world.

There is, though, in the
field of mathematics and, to a lesser degree, science. You reject that objective way, however, confusing truth with what you would like to be
true.

This is causing the rise of the fourth Reich and
the destruction of the planet through climate change.

You are (deliberately?) confusing different types of truth. Mathematics
and science are no defence against politicians like failed artists and
failed business men. Unfortunately.

No this too is not my error. It is actually the error
of Willard Van Orman Quine https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
that used double talk and weasel words to convince most
people that analytic truth does not exist. He couldn't
even figure out how we know that bachelors are unmarried.

The type of truth that I refer to here is expressions of
language that are proven completely true entirely on the
basis of other expressions of language.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

[ Followup-To: set ]

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/5/2025 7:26 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/4/2025 8:33 AM, joes wrote:

Am Fri, 04 Jul 2025 07:34:39 -0500 schrieb olcott:

[ .... ]

All that I have done is refute the conventional halting problem proof >>>>> technique.

You have not. You've not even come close.

That you do not even know the details of my work gives
you no basis to refute it.

The theorem you so despise is a theorem. It has been proven, and I have verified that proof. I am a graduate mathematician. This is sufficient
basis to dismiss your unfounded falsehoods.

[ Irrelevant stuff deleted. ]

Once this is accepted as correct I will move on to the next best
proof after that.

Which one is that? And what is your goal if not refuting the halting
theorem?

To conquer each proof of the HP one at a time.

You're a clueless fool. You don't understand in the abstract what a
proof is, and you don't understand this particular proof.

The reason that I am doing this is that people have a fundamentally
incorrect understanding about how truth itself actually works.

You're a clueless fool. You yourself have no correct understanding about
truth.

All you have is rhetoric and ad hominem that is entirely
bereft of any supporting reasoning.

Wrong. As I said, I have a degree in maths; you don't. For the
supporting reasoning, I have the proof of the theorem you falsely deny.

No one even tries to point out any actual mistake even when repeatedly
dared to do this.

Several years of experience in this newsgroups shows that you invariably
ignore your many mistakes that people point out.

In particular, when a mathematical result is proven by a
mathematical proof, it is true.

<sarcasm>
Sure because all mathematicians that created these proofs
are inherently infallible. If God himself pointed out any
error this would be blasphemy.

The proof of this is that Naive set theory is still infallible
and ZFC is just some head game that has no actual value at all.
</sarcasm>

The above isn't worth addressing. It just shows your lack of
understanding of maths and science and their history.

The proof you delude yourself you have "conquered" is a valid proof.
It was formulated by mathematicians much brighter than either of us,
and is an exceptionally simple and clear proof. Any reasonably bright
undergraduate can grasp it in a few minutes.

You can't even correctly point out one single detail of any
actual mistake that I made that would invalidate my proof.

You lie. You don't have a proof. Many people in this group have pointed
out lots of errors in various versions of your purported proof, which you
just ignore. The section in Professor Linz's book you used to be so fond
of citing will contain plenty of details, if only you would take the
trouble to understand it (assuming you're capable of such understanding).

Anyhow, you are just a crank. It is entirely the wrong thing to do to
engage a crank on his own terms, and I don't intend to start.

Because of these misconceptions there has been no objective way to
divide truth from well crafted lies.

A great deal of what you post on this newsgroup is lies, though I
wouldn't call them well crafted. You simply have no well developed
notion of what truth is.

There has never been an objective way to differentiate truth from
falsehood in politics and general discourse.

Yet.
*What I am proposing is a giant expansion of the syllogism*
Every meaning of every natural language word is mathematically
formalized using an extension to Montague Grammar. These are
all in a knowledge ontology inheritance hierarchy. This creates
a finite list of all of the basis facts of the world.

A grand project indeed. Whether or not it is possible is doubtful. I
believe it is neither possible nor desirable.

There is, though, in the field of mathematics and, to a lesser degree,
science. You reject that objective way, however, confusing truth with
what you would like to be true.

This is causing the rise of the fourth Reich and
the destruction of the planet through climate change.

You are (deliberately?) confusing different types of truth. Mathematics
and science are no defence against politicians like failed artists and
failed business men. Unfortunately.

No this too is not my error. It is actually the error
of Willard Van Orman Quine https://iep.utm.edu/quine-an/
that used double talk and weasel words to convince most
people that analytic truth does not exist. He couldn't
even figure out how we know that bachelors are unmarried.

<Sigh>. What would it take to make you see your own true intellectual
prowess, and that it is considerably less than that of the intellectual
giants of recent centuries?

The type of truth that I refer to here is expressions of
language that are proven completely true entirely on the
basis of other expressions of language.

This is unattainable for many reasons. But I would encourage you to
persue this goal rather than continually post naive falsehoods on this newsgroup. Even so, this type of truth wouldn't persuade people in
general, just as mathematical proof doesn't persuade you.

--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 7/5/2025 2:07 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

You lie. You don't have a proof. Many people in this group have pointed
out lots of errors in various versions of your purported proof, which you

void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}

*They disagree with this truism* (that seems dishonest)
DDD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of the
C programming language cannot possibly reach its own
simulated "return" instruction final halt state.

just ignore. The section in Professor Linz's book you used to be so fond
of citing will contain plenty of details, if only you would take the
trouble to understand it (assuming you're capable of such understanding).

I have addressed all of those details that you make sure
to ignore so that you can baselessly claim that I am wrong.

There cannot possibly be *AN ACTUAL INPUT* that does the
opposite of whatever its decider decides. All of the examples
of this have never been *ACTUAL INPUTS*

No Turing machine can possibly take another directly executing
Turing machine as in input, thus removing these from the
domain of every halt decider.

*Thus the requirement that HHH report on the behavior*
*of the directly executed DD has always been bogus*

Turing machine partial halt deciders compute the mapping
from their actual inputs to the actual behavior that these
inputs specify.

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

DD simulated by HHH according to the semantics of the C
programming language cannot possibly halt when halting
is defined as reaching its own simulated "return"
statement final halt state.

Because the directly executed DD() is outside of the
domain of HHH its behavior does not contradict HHH(DD)==0.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2