From Newsgroup: sci.lang

On 10/12/2025 4:25 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-10-11 13:44:09 +0000, olcott said:

On 10/11/2025 8:41 AM, dbush wrote:

On 10/11/2025 9:40 AM, olcott wrote:

That is only because you stupidly ignore the expressly
stated details of correctly matching correct non-halting
behavior patterns.

But the pattern in question is *not* a non-halting behavior pattern
because it exists in the halting computation DD.

Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping
from their finite string inputs to an accept state
or reject state on the basis that this input finite
string specifies a semantic or syntactic property.

The only way to correctly determine the actual behavior
that an actual input actually specifies is for simulating
halt decider H to simulate its input D.

Another way is to use partial halting deciders that are proven to
never give a wrong answer until one of them gives some answer.

Determining the halt status of an input that
does the opposite of whatever value is returned
is as bogus as determining whether or not this
Liar Paradox sentence is true or false:
"This sentence is not true".

?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).

?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
false.

This proves that LP has an infinitely recursive
structure that never resolves to a truth value.

My own Minimal Type Theory proves the same thing.
LP := ~True(LP)
00 ~ 01
01 True 00

Minimal Type Theory (YACC BNF) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331859461_Minimal_Type_Theory_YACC_BNF --
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