Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Truthmaker
 Maximalism
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 12:19:26 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 140
Message-ID: <vr1oev$1ev1a$15@dont-email.me>
References: <vqntaq$1jut5$1@dont-email.me> <vqp388$1tvqa$1@dont-email.me>
 <vqpdv9$202b2$2@dont-email.me> <vqperb$20c9k$2@dont-email.me>
 <E6mcnWv3nMa66036nZ2dnZfqnPWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
 <vqs2n8$2knng$1@dont-email.me>
 <5429f6c8b8a8a79e06b4aeefe677cc54a2a636bf@i2pn2.org>
 <vqt9jp$2spcd$6@dont-email.me> <vqtag4$2t2hb$2@dont-email.me>
 <vqtgl0$2u7fo$1@dont-email.me>
 <924e22fc46d629b311b16a954dd0bed980a0a094@i2pn2.org>
 <vqvg7s$3s1qt$3@dont-email.me> <vqvgb4$3kfru$5@dont-email.me>
 <vqvi94$3tk5h$1@dont-email.me> <vr01sq$9741$1@dont-email.me>
 <vr17h1$18je3$1@dont-email.me> <vr1err$1ev1a$2@dont-email.me>
 <0c100c3673494d00bdc02acd44b2d5b930bd2212.camel@gmail.com>
 <vr1ja0$1ev1a$9@dont-email.me>
 <6c64432865001be54d691f8ef0cc89ddc71d18b6.camel@gmail.com>
 <vr1lnu$1ev1a$12@dont-email.me>
 <86fbc35155fbcb3e88cf0dd069d16d61e16bcf4e.camel@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 18:19:28 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="dafe6f14f3a328460e6bcedd003dc467";
	logging-data="1539114"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18gxtUIg8Awxq73OmtLe8SM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XC02t+bfWCE4yqLyv77onrBoqaU=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250314-6, 3/14/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <86fbc35155fbcb3e88cf0dd069d16d61e16bcf4e.camel@gmail.com>
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Bytes: 6916

On 3/14/2025 11:58 AM, wij wrote:
> On Fri, 2025-03-14 at 11:33 -0500, olcott wrote:
>> On 3/14/2025 11:01 AM, wij wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2025-03-14 at 10:51 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 3/14/2025 10:04 AM, wij wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 2025-03-14 at 09:35 -0500, olcott wrote:>>
>>>>>> void DDD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>>       HHH(DDD);
>>>>>>       return;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
>>>>>> its own "return" instruction in any finite number of
>>>>>> correctly simulated steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you are clueless about the semantics of something
>>>>>> as simple as a tiny C function proves that you are not
>>>>>> competent to review my work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> That means: H(D)=1 if D() halts and H(D)=0 if D() does not halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> But, it seems you don't understand English, as least as my level, ....
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>>      HHH(DDD);
>>>>      return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> The only difference between HHH and HHH1 is that they are
>>>> at different locations in memory. DDD simulated by HHH1
>>>> has identical behavior to DDD() directly executed in main().
>>>>
>>>> The semantics of the finite string input DDD to HHH specifies
>>>> that it will continue to call HHH(DDD) in recursive simulation.
>>>>
>>>> The semantics of the finite string input DDD to HHH1 specifies
>>>> to simulate to DDD exactly once.
>>>>
>>>> When HHH(DDD) reports on the behavior that its input finite
>>>> string specifies it can only correctly report non-halting.
>>>>
>>>> When HHH(DDD) is required to report on behavior other than
>>>> the behavior that its finite string specifies HHH is not
>>>> a decider thus not a halt decider.
>>>>
>>>> All deciders are required to compute the mapping from
>>>> their input finite string to the semantic or syntactic property
>>>> that this string specifies. Deciders return true when this
>>>> string specifies this property otherwise they return false.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Are you solving The Halting Problem or not? Yes or No.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I have only correctly refuted the conventional halting
>> problem proof. Actually solving the halting problem
>> requires a program that is ALL KNOWING thus God like.
> 
> I (GUR) had told you God cannot solve HP neither 
> (maybe because the problem is limited in a box)
> 

When we define the HP as having H return a value
corresponding to the halting behavior of input D
and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever
value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves
in to a problem having no solution.

When we define the problem as the behavior that input
finite string DD specifies as measured by N steps of
DD correctly simulated by HHH then this DD cannot
possibly reach the self-contradictory portion of its
own code. This DD simply remains stuck in recursive
simulation for each of the N steps that HHH correctly
simulates.

>> My actual specialty for the last 21 years is overcoming
>> how pathological self-reference has thwarted the correct
>> evaluation of expressions of language.
> 
> TM reads symbols, or just 1 and 0, there is no 'semantics'
> (pathological self-reference) there.
> 
>> Of this very narrow and specific focus it seems that I
>> have more knowledge than anyone else in the world.
> 
> POO Halt seems based on the liar's paradox. But the HP proof is
> not really isomorphic to liar's paradox. If HP proof is explained
> in that way for convenience reasons.
> 

When H must report on the halting behavior of input D
and D is able to do the opposite of whatever value that
H reports this is exactly the same self-contradictory
pattern as the Liar Paradox.

>> The closest related field to my work is the philosophy
>> of Truth-maker maximalism
>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthmakers/#Max
>> gonzalo rodriguez-pereyra seems to be the leading
>> author in this field.
>>
> 
> You are solving philosophical problem, not HP.
> 

The HP is one example of the philosophical problem
that I am solving.

>> I have only worked on the subset of truth where the
>> truth of expressions of language only depends on a
>> connection to their semantic meaning expressed in
>> this same language (Olcott analytic truth).
> 
> You don't even understand the logical IF. what can I say?
> 
> 

The logical "if" of implication is not the logical "if"
of C programming.

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