Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 11:39:40 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 231
Message-ID: <10342se$4ms9$1@dont-email.me>
References: <YpG1Q.1572310$4AM6.1293015@fx17.ams4>
 <ab53329d43e0587e58fe949b7a8f1dce83bb580f@i2pn2.org>
 <1027uhs$r7bj$2@dont-email.me>
 <6f1855be769b3afc319d871c0d451f381803ba5e@i2pn2.org>
 <1029hvm$1ah2f$1@dont-email.me> <102bhn6$1t2a1$1@dont-email.me>
 <102c462$20jl4$10@dont-email.me> <102e2p4$2iugr$1@dont-email.me>
 <102er47$2ohps$3@dont-email.me> <102gv1s$3cscf$1@dont-email.me>
 <102hgcp$3gqbm$3@dont-email.me> <102m36e$qohc$1@dont-email.me>
 <102mm8v$uef9$8@dont-email.me> <102ok6o$1gto6$1@dont-email.me>
 <102uj28$369b2$1@dont-email.me> <1030gop$3p2jt$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2025 18:39:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f938b348c4e7170a4ede38a4382f6060";
	logging-data="154505"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/ospb1Mi7N2iMYAKAv632r"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CYlAzaXIEu21x2H2xWSnYUZ8qGY=
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <1030gop$3p2jt$1@dont-email.me>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250620-0, 6/19/2025), Outbound message

On 6/19/2025 3:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-06-18 14:39:02 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 6/16/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-06-15 14:44:47 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 6/15/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-06-12 15:18:30 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2025 3:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-11 14:34:41 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-06-10 15:11:50 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2025 6:15 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/25 8:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/2025 7:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/25 3:16 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "big fat ignorant liar" -- Damon
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you show me wrong?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or are you complaining about me telling him the truth?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What about this paper that I wrote?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Severe anthropogenic climate change proven entirely with 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verifiable facts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which just shows you don't know the meaning of the word 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "prove".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What specifically do you believe is not proven?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The article makes no attempt to prove anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That is a dishonest or stupid thing to say.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On what page and line there is the end of the conclusion of
>>>>>>>>> a proof?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe you don't know what a verified fact is?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Irrepevant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you don't know what a verified fact is, cannot
>>>>>> possibly be more relevant.
>>>>>
>>>>> Indeed, but what is more relevant is that you don't know what a 
>>>>> fact is.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It means that when I conclusively
>>>>>> prove that you are wrong you will still think that you are
>>>>>> correct because you lack the basis for dividing correct
>>>>>> from incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant as long as you don't prove anything.
>>>>
>>>> When I fully proven my claim and your lack of sufficient
>>>> technical knowledge fails to understand this proof that
>>>> is not any actual rebuttal at all.
>>>
>>> Be specific. The relevant techincal knoledge is the knowloedge
>>> of what a proof is and how one looks like. That knowledge
>>> I have, so I know that you have not presented any proof.
>>> I have not failed to understand what does not exist.
>>
>> A proof is any sequence of statements
> 
> So far correct.
> 
>> that are necessarily true and thus impossibly false.
> 
> But this is not. A proof starts with assumptions that may be true of
> false. Each statement that is not a definition, axiom, postulate,
> hypthesis or other assumption follows from some previous statements
> by an inference rule. The conclusion of a proof is the last statement
> of the sequence.
> 

Some proofs begin with definitions instead of assumptions.

>>>>>>> Your question "What specifically do you believe is not
>>>>>>> proven?" was about proofs, not about facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Facts are the ultimate ground-of-being maximum foundational
>>>>>> basis of all proofs.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, they are not, just of proofs about the real world.
>>>>
>>>> So how many decades how you carefully studied the
>>>> philosophical foundation of analytical truth?
>>>
>>> It doesn't take decades of study to learn that an analyitcal
>>> truth says nothing about the real world. That is one of the
>>> very first things teached and learned.
>>
>> That dogs are animals is an analytical truth
>> that does say something about the real world.
> 
> No, it is not. Vernacular terms "dog" and "animal" have aquired teir
> traditiona meanigs separately and at different times. The statement
> "Dogs are aninals" is known to be true from comparison of various
> things to the traditional meanings of those words.
> 
>> Like almost everyone you don't know much about
>> analytical truth.
> 
> As an analytincal truth says nothing about the real world the
> usefulness of any knowledge about it is limited.
> 
>>>>>>> As you respond to my question without answering it it is
>>>>>>> obvious that you don't see any proofs in your article.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any
>>>>>> termination analyzer H that does the opposite of
>>>>>> whatever value that H derives. The key element that
>>>>>> all conventional HP proofs depend on cannot possibly exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense is not a fact.
>>>>
>>>> After studying these things for 22 years I found
>>>> that every conventional proof of the halting problem
>>>> never provides an actual input that would do the
>>>> opposite of whatever value that its partial halt
>>>> decider (PHD) returns.
>>>
>>> The core part of those proofs is a constructive specification
>>> of that test case.
>>
>> Yet no one ever noticed that the counter-example input
>> cannot even be constructed thus the proof itself never
>> actually existed.
> 
> Depending on the style of the proof one can ither prove that
> the counter example exists or that if a halting decider exists
> then the caunter example exists, too, and otherwise none is
> needed.
> 

No this is counter-factual.
It has never been possible for *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to do
the opposite of whatever value that it decider decides.
*For 90 years no one ever bothered to notice this*

int main()
{
   DD(); // IS NOT AN ACTUAL INPUT TO THE
}       // HHH(DD) THAT THIS DD() CALLS.

In the C programming language it has always been
impossible for the caller of a function to be an
argument to this called function.

The finite string of x86 machine language that is
passed as an argument to HHH
*is not exactly one and the same thing as the directly executed DD*
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========