From Newsgroup: comp.theory

v1.1 released, notable improvements:

to appease the superfluous nitpicking:
- -o1 title -> the halting problem paradox
- -o1 line "The halting problem can then be constructed as such"
-> "The undecidability paradox for the halting problem can then
be constructed as such"

pseudo-code:
- all looping consolidated into a loop keyword
see doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22548963 for more info

-o6.1-2 overhaul:
removed the hanging conjecture and replaced it with further explanation showing that a full enumeration of computable sequences constructed by
output sequences decidable by parital recognizer Dp, and any associated anti-sequences to those sequences, cannot then be utilized to compute a
true total diagonal across all computable sequence, either the anti or
direct diagonal! the second fallacy is turing's paper is now fully demonstrated as a fallacy

-o7.7 now concludes by proposing a computing more fundamental than that
of turing machines, as justified by the thot experiment explained
throughout the entirety of -o7

links still the same:
doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22715823
academia.edu/175392427
--
arising us out of the computing dark ages,
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ the lil crank that could

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 9/19/2026 2:35 PM, dart200 wrote:

v1.1 released, notable improvements:

to appease the superfluous nitpicking:
- -o1 title -> the halting problem paradox
- -o1 line "The halting problem can then be constructed as such"
-a -> "The undecidability paradox for the halting problem can then
-a-a-a-a-a be constructed as such"

pseudo-code:
- all looping consolidated into a loop keyword
-a see doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22548963 for more info

-o6.1-2 overhaul:
removed the hanging conjecture and replaced it with further explanation showing that a full enumeration of computable sequences constructed by output sequences decidable by parital recognizer Dp, and any associated anti-sequences to those sequences, cannot then be utilized to compute a
true total diagonal across all computable sequence, either the anti or direct diagonal! the second fallacy is turing's paper is now fully demonstrated as a fallacy

-o7.7 now concludes by proposing a computing more fundamental than that
of turing machines, as justified by the thot experiment explained
throughout the entirety of -o7

links still the same:
doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22715823
academia.edu/175392427

This is a notable improvement. Good work!
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 9/19/26 2:53 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:

On Sat, 19 Sep 2026 14:35:57 -0700, dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

v1.1 released, notable improvements:

to appease the superfluous nitpicking:
- -o1 title -> the halting problem paradox
- -o1 line "The halting problem can then be constructed as such"
-> "The undecidability paradox for the halting problem can then
be constructed as such"

pseudo-code:
- all looping consolidated into a loop keyword
see doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22548963 for more info

-o6.1-2 overhaul:
removed the hanging conjecture and replaced it with further explanation
showing that a full enumeration of computable sequences constructed by
output sequences decidable by parital recognizer Dp, and any associated
anti-sequences to those sequences, cannot then be utilized to compute a
true total diagonal across all computable sequence, either the anti or
direct diagonal! the second fallacy is turing's paper is now fully
demonstrated as a fallacy

-o7.7 now concludes by proposing a computing more fundamental than that
of turing machines, as justified by the thot experiment explained
throughout the entirety of -o7

So, in effect, you admit that the problem is not solvable for turing
machines

it's far more profound than that

i've clarified that despite the fact we're not able to build a
classifier for any given input machine, there still exists a set of
machines that is effectively turing-complete (includes all possible
output sequences), that is entirely decidable by a classifier that
exists within that set.

so yes the halting problem is a genuine limit of sorts, but it is not
nearly as limiting as we thought

it does not present a practical limit to what we can decide upon,
neither from the broader perspective of a more fundamental computing,
nor from just within turing machine computing itself

links still the same:
doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22715823
academia.edu/175392427

--
arising us out of the computing dark ages,
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ the lil crank that could
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 9/19/26 3:23 PM, Dude wrote:

On 9/19/2026 2:35 PM, dart200 wrote:

v1.1 released, notable improvements:

to appease the superfluous nitpicking:
- -o1 title -> the halting problem paradox
- -o1 line "The halting problem can then be constructed as such"
-a-a -> "The undecidability paradox for the halting problem can then
-a-a-a-a-a-a be constructed as such"

pseudo-code:
- all looping consolidated into a loop keyword
-a-a see doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22548963 for more info

-o6.1-2 overhaul:
removed the hanging conjecture and replaced it with further
explanation showing that a full enumeration of computable sequences
constructed by output sequences decidable by parital recognizer Dp,
and any associated anti-sequences to those sequences, cannot then be
utilized to compute a true total diagonal across all computable
sequence, either the anti or direct diagonal! the second fallacy is
turing's paper is now fully demonstrated as a fallacy

-o7.7 now concludes by proposing a computing more fundamental than that
of turing machines, as justified by the thot experiment explained
throughout the entirety of -o7

links still the same:
doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22715823
academia.edu/175392427

This is a notable improvement. Good work!

turing would be excited for sure,

and you still have no fking clue what ur talking about dud
--
why are we god?
let's end war EfOa

--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 20/09/2026 01:26, dart200 wrote:

so yes the halting problem is a genuine limit of sorts, but it is not
nearly as limiting as we thought

it does not present a practical limit to what we can decide upon,
neither from the broader perspective of a more fundamental computing,
nor from just within turing machine computing itself

There are many interesting and other unsolved problems that would be
easy to solve if we had a halting decider or halting oracle for Turing machines.
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 9/20/26 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 20/09/2026 01:26, dart200 wrote:

so yes the halting problem is a genuine limit of sorts, but it is not
nearly as limiting as we thought

it does not present a practical limit to what we can decide upon,
neither from the broader perspective of a more fundamental computing,
nor from just within turing machine computing itself

There are many interesting and other unsolved problems that would be
easy to solve if we had a halting decider or halting oracle for Turing machines.

correct,

but this paper is how a halting algo can exist, it's not presenting a
halting algo in of itself
--
arising us out of the computing dark ages,
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ the lil crank that could
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 20/09/2026 18:50, dart200 wrote:

On 9/20/26 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 20/09/2026 01:26, dart200 wrote:

so yes the halting problem is a genuine limit of sorts, but it is not
nearly as limiting as we thought

it does not present a practical limit to what we can decide upon,
neither from the broader perspective of a more fundamental computing,
nor from just within turing machine computing itself

There are many interesting and other unsolved problems that would be
easy to solve if we had a halting decider or halting oracle for Turing
machines.

correct,

but this paper is how a halting algo can exist, it's not presenting a halting algo in of itself

That the nonexstence of super-Turing algorthms is not proven is already
known. It is also unknown whether the behaviour of the Universe is
Turing computable. If it is then there can't be any super-Turing
computations.
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 9/21/26 12:26 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 20/09/2026 18:50, dart200 wrote:

On 9/20/26 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 20/09/2026 01:26, dart200 wrote:

so yes the halting problem is a genuine limit of sorts, but it is
not nearly as limiting as we thought

it does not present a practical limit to what we can decide upon,
neither from the broader perspective of a more fundamental
computing, nor from just within turing machine computing itself

There are many interesting and other unsolved problems that would be
easy to solve if we had a halting decider or halting oracle for Turing
machines.

correct,

but this paper is how a halting algo can exist, it's not presenting a
halting algo in of itself

That the nonexstence of super-Turing algorthms is not proven is already known. It is also unknown whether the behaviour of the Universe is
Turing computable. If it is then there can't be any super-Turing computations.

u can't argue against my paper unless u actually fking read it dud
--
arising us out of the computing dark ages,
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ the lil crank that could
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 21/09/2026 20:22, dart200 wrote:

On 9/21/26 12:26 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 20/09/2026 18:50, dart200 wrote:

On 9/20/26 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 20/09/2026 01:26, dart200 wrote:

so yes the halting problem is a genuine limit of sorts, but it is
not nearly as limiting as we thought

it does not present a practical limit to what we can decide upon,
neither from the broader perspective of a more fundamental
computing, nor from just within turing machine computing itself

There are many interesting and other unsolved problems that would be
easy to solve if we had a halting decider or halting oracle for Turing >>>> machines.

correct,

but this paper is how a halting algo can exist, it's not presenting a
halting algo in of itself

That the nonexstence of super-Turing algorthms is not proven is already
known. It is also unknown whether the behaviour of the Universe is
Turing computable. If it is then there can't be any super-Turing
computations.

u can't argue against my paper unless u actually fking read it dud

It seems that you can't argue for your paper even if you read it.
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 9/22/26 1:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 21/09/2026 20:22, dart200 wrote:

On 9/21/26 12:26 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 20/09/2026 18:50, dart200 wrote:

On 9/20/26 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 20/09/2026 01:26, dart200 wrote:

so yes the halting problem is a genuine limit of sorts, but it is >>>>>> not nearly as limiting as we thought

it does not present a practical limit to what we can decide upon, >>>>>> neither from the broader perspective of a more fundamental
computing, nor from just within turing machine computing itself

There are many interesting and other unsolved problems that would be >>>>> easy to solve if we had a halting decider or halting oracle for Turing >>>>> machines.

correct,

but this paper is how a halting algo can exist, it's not presenting
a halting algo in of itself

That the nonexstence of super-Turing algorthms is not proven is already
known. It is also unknown whether the behaviour of the Universe is
Turing computable. If it is then there can't be any super-Turing
computations.

u can't argue against my paper unless u actually fking read it dud

It seems that you can't argue for your paper even if you read it.

it seems that u don't want to engage genuinely so Efuo dud
--
arising us out of the computing dark ages,
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ the lil crank that could
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 9/22/2026 2:03 AM, dart200 wrote:

On 9/22/26 1:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 21/09/2026 20:22, dart200 wrote:

On 9/21/26 12:26 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 20/09/2026 18:50, dart200 wrote:

On 9/20/26 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 20/09/2026 01:26, dart200 wrote:

so yes the halting problem is a genuine limit of sorts, but it is >>>>>>> not nearly as limiting as we thought

it does not present a practical limit to what we can decide upon, >>>>>>> neither from the broader perspective of a more fundamental
computing, nor from just within turing machine computing itself

There are many interesting and other unsolved problems that would be >>>>>> easy to solve if we had a halting decider or halting oracle for
Turing
machines.

correct,

but this paper is how a halting algo can exist, it's not presenting >>>>> a halting algo in of itself

That the nonexstence of super-Turing algorthms is not proven is already >>>> known. It is also unknown whether the behaviour of the Universe is
Turing computable. If it is then there can't be any super-Turing
computations.

u can't argue against my paper unless u actually fking read it dud

It seems that you can't argue for your paper even if you read it.

it seems that u don't want to engage genuinely so Efuo dud

This is embarrassing!

You came here to get enlightened and you then called everyone a
chuckle-shit, then cross-posted to alt.messianic and comp.theory - to
engage genuinely?

Obviously, it's a cry for help.

Some people just feel better when they have someone to talk to. YMMV.

"You can't make this stuff up. It would be unbelievable." - Dan Aykroyd
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 9/20/2026 12:13 AM, dart200 wrote:

On 9/19/26 3:23 PM, Dude wrote:

On 9/19/2026 2:35 PM, dart200 wrote:

v1.1 released, notable improvements:

to appease the superfluous nitpicking:
- -o1 title -> the halting problem paradox
- -o1 line "The halting problem can then be constructed as such"
-a-a -> "The undecidability paradox for the halting problem can then
-a-a-a-a-a-a be constructed as such"

pseudo-code:
- all looping consolidated into a loop keyword
-a-a see doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22548963 for more info

-o6.1-2 overhaul:
removed the hanging conjecture and replaced it with further
explanation showing that a full enumeration of computable sequences
constructed by output sequences decidable by parital recognizer Dp,
and any associated anti-sequences to those sequences, cannot then be
utilized to compute a true total diagonal across all computable
sequence, either the anti or direct diagonal! the second fallacy is
turing's paper is now fully demonstrated as a fallacy

-o7.7 now concludes by proposing a computing more fundamental than
that of turing machines, as justified by the thot experiment
explained throughout the entirety of -o7

links still the same:
doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22715823
academia.edu/175392427

This is a notable improvement. Good work!

turing would be excited for sure,

and you still have no fking clue what ur talking about dud

Your paper might benefit from adding an introduction - something more explanatory than other than chuckle-shits. YMMV.

That title doesn't seem fitting for Scientific American article.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.theory

On 9/22/2026 1:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 21/09/2026 20:22, dart200 wrote:

On 9/21/26 12:26 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 20/09/2026 18:50, dart200 wrote:

On 9/20/26 2:38 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 20/09/2026 01:26, dart200 wrote:

so yes the halting problem is a genuine limit of sorts, but it is >>>>>> not nearly as limiting as we thought

it does not present a practical limit to what we can decide upon, >>>>>> neither from the broader perspective of a more fundamental
computing, nor from just within turing machine computing itself

There are many interesting and other unsolved problems that would be >>>>> easy to solve if we had a halting decider or halting oracle for Turing >>>>> machines.

correct,

but this paper is how a halting algo can exist, it's not presenting
a halting algo in of itself

That the nonexstence of super-Turing algorthms is not proven is already
known. It is also unknown whether the behaviour of the Universe is
Turing computable. If it is then there can't be any super-Turing
computations.

u can't argue against my paper unless u actually fking read it dud

It seems that you can't argue for your paper even if you read it.

It's difficult to argue a paper to strap on chuckle-shits when you snip
out the outline of the paper, and cross post to:

alt.buddha.short.fat.guy.

Hope this helps.
--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2