Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic
Subject: Re: My reviewers think that halt deciders must report on the behavior
 of their caller
Date: Sat, 5 Jul 2025 23:34:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <104cud2$1r72a$2@dont-email.me>
References: <101nq32$99vd$1@dont-email.me> <101o913$db96$2@dont-email.me>
 <101o9rb$hd6o$1@dont-email.me> <101oa30$db96$4@dont-email.me>
 <101obb4$hd6o$4@dont-email.me> <101oc24$hlr6$2@dont-email.me>
 <101ocpc$hd6o$7@dont-email.me> <101od0p$i3m6$2@dont-email.me>
 <1049edr$10io1$2@dont-email.me>
 <a25b36c514731c7946fc2fb5e003c4dda451452e@i2pn2.org>
 <1049jhv$11mmt$2@dont-email.me>
 <89d2edbab76401270efa67a8fbc135d5c47fefab@i2pn2.org>
 <104bjmr$1hqln$16@dont-email.me>
 <3f64fdd81d67415b7b0e305463d950c0c71e2db7@i2pn2.org>
 <EKKdnXZfl9Qpf_T1nZ2dnZfqlJ-dnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <9dcab3b82e32f9eb8473f8bc5361ab2fbef8b8f8@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 06 Jul 2025 06:34:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="1d15e621694ba385b5c4999100d2724d";
	logging-data="1940554"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/qQ+pIw25FZZWDWjqDjNdN"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:PZtMrPJsNJCqjbHKhsoZ2EkObxQ=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250705-6, 7/5/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <9dcab3b82e32f9eb8473f8bc5361ab2fbef8b8f8@i2pn2.org>

On 7/5/2025 10:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/5/25 10:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/5/2025 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/5/25 12:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/5/2025 8:14 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/4/25 6:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/4/2025 3:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/4/25 4:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 10:02 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 10:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 9:46 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 10:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2025 9:12 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> computes the following mapping:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed directly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes there is no algorithm that does that 
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Excellent!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Let The Record Show
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That Peter Olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Has *EXPLICITLY* admitted
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That no algorithm H exists that meets the above requirements, 
>>>>>>>>>>> which is precisely the theorem that the halting problem 
>>>>>>>>>>> proofs prove.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> In the exact same way that there is no set of all set
>>>>>>>>>> that contain themselves. ZFC did not solve Russell's
>>>>>>>>>> Paradox as much as it showed that Russell's Paradox
>>>>>>>>>> was anchored in an incoherent foundation, now called
>>>>>>>>>> naive set theory.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which arose because the axioms of naive set theory created a 
>>>>>>>>> contradiction.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Likewise with halt deciders that are required to report
>>>>>>>> on the behavior of directly executed Turing machines.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what is the CONTRADICTION?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The result is just some things are not computable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The result is that there cannot possibly be
>>>>>> an *ACTUAL INPUT* that does the opposite of
>>>>>> whatever its partial halt decider decides
>>>>>> thus the HP proof fails before it begins.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure there is.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In order to have an honest dialogue you must pay
>>>> 100% complete attention to every single word.
>>>>
>>>> You can't just erase one of the words that I said
>>>> and then form a rebuttal on that basis.
>>>>
>>>> Directly executed Turing machines have always been
>>>> outside of the domain of every Turing machine based
>>>> decider.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Your refusal to providee a source is your admission that you are just 
>>> a liar.
>>>
>>> Remember, The DEFINITION of a Halt Deicder is that it is to be a 
>>> decider that decides if the program represented by its input will 
>>> halt when run.
>>>
>>
>> It has never been the program represented by its input
>> it has always been the behavior specified by its input.
>> This is the key mistake that no one noticed in 90 years.
> 
> Really?
> 
> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of 
> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an 
> input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever.
> 
> Sounds like the program and its representation.
> 

With pathological self-reference the directly
executed machine will not have the same
behavior as the correctly simulated machine
specification.

> 
> The Program comes first, and THAT is what the Halting Mapping is based on.
> 
> The finite string representation is the implementation detail for giving 
> it to the decider.
> 
> It seems you don't even understand the 101 level terms.
> 
> You are just proving how stupid and ignorant you are. A self-made 
> stupidity and ignorance, because you are afraid the truth will brainwash 
> you, so you preemptively brainwashed yourself to be immune to the truth.
> 
> This just make you a pathological liar.
> 


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