Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: wij Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Truthmaker Maximalism Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2025 00:58:50 +0800 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 111 Message-ID: <86fbc35155fbcb3e88cf0dd069d16d61e16bcf4e.camel@gmail.com> References: <5429f6c8b8a8a79e06b4aeefe677cc54a2a636bf@i2pn2.org> <924e22fc46d629b311b16a954dd0bed980a0a094@i2pn2.org> <0c100c3673494d00bdc02acd44b2d5b930bd2212.camel@gmail.com> <6c64432865001be54d691f8ef0cc89ddc71d18b6.camel@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 17:58:51 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a499a0831bd7f6466cd8a05ed4720a40"; logging-data="1693018"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+TRnGe3rjQHgjlbOlhF+lj" User-Agent: Evolution 3.54.3 (3.54.3-1.fc41) Cancel-Lock: sha1:gWBEE13XCg0LCuOAHojoH27zVfs= In-Reply-To: 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() > > > > > { > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 HHH(DDD); > > > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 return; > > > > > } > > > > >=20 > > > > > DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach > > > > > its own "return" instruction in any finite number of > > > > > correctly simulated steps. > > > > >=20 > > > > > 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. > > > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem > > > > In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of dete= rmining, from a description > > > > of > > > > an > > > > arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will f= inish running, or continue > > > > to > > > > run > > > > forever. > > > >=20 > > > > That means: H(D)=3D1 if D() halts and H(D)=3D0 if D() does not halt= .. > > > >=20 > > > > But, it seems you don't understand English, as least as my level, .= .... > > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > void DDD() > > > { > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 HHH(DDD); > > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 return; > > > } > > >=20 > > > 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(). > > >=20 > > > The semantics of the finite string input DDD to HHH specifies > > > that it will continue to call HHH(DDD) in recursive simulation. > > >=20 > > > The semantics of the finite string input DDD to HHH1 specifies > > > to simulate to DDD exactly once. > > >=20 > > > When HHH(DDD) reports on the behavior that its input finite > > > string specifies it can only correctly report non-halting. > > >=20 > > > 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. > > >=20 > > > 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. > > >=20 > >=20 > > Are you solving The Halting Problem or not? Yes or No. > >=20 > >=20 >=20 > 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) > 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=C2=A0'semantics'=C2=A0 (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. > 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. >=20 You are solving philosophical problem, not HP. > 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?