Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott 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: References: <5429f6c8b8a8a79e06b4aeefe677cc54a2a636bf@i2pn2.org> <924e22fc46d629b311b16a954dd0bed980a0a094@i2pn2.org> <0c100c3673494d00bdc02acd44b2d5b930bd2212.camel@gmail.com> <6c64432865001be54d691f8ef0cc89ddc71d18b6.camel@gmail.com> <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