From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 11/18/2025 2:02 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/18/2025 7:36 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> wrote:

On 11/17/25 9:29 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

The Halting Theorem is wholly a theorem of mathematics,
and only secondarily about computer science.

the original proof as written by turing uses notions justified in turing >>>> machines to then support godel's result, not the other way around

Alan Turing was a mathematician, possibly the finest of the 20th
century. Turing machines are a mathematical construction, based on the
maths of the time.

He invented computer science and when he did that
he became the first computer scientist. That his
ideas were anchoring in a the brand new formalism
of Turing machines broke his work away from math.

It did not. His 1936 paper was a mathematics paper.

He cold not call himself a computer scientist at
the time because his work was the creation of
computer science. For many years all work on
computer science was done in the applied mathematics
department.

it is fundamentally based in computer science using turing machines as >>>> "axioms", which are in turn justified by our ability to mechanically
undertake the operations, not set theory

The fact that one can build a mechanical implementation of a turing
machine is incidental. They are 100% mathematical abstractions,
defined, used, and reasoned about as such.

The fact that one can build Turing computable functions
in C abstracts tons of details that have nothing to do
with the essence of computation.

No, you've got that the wrong way round. The C language burdens
computation theory with all sorts of unnecessary details (unnecessary
for computation theory, that is).

Simply moving an object in memory from one location
to another is far too burdensome. The RASP machine
maps pretty well to x86 which in turn maps pretty
well to C.

Relationships that were buried in detail can now be finally seen
clearly.

C burdens theory with obfuscation. Turing machines are lacking such inessentials, yet are capable enough to perform any computation.

that is why the way i'm refuting it is by modifying turing machines with >>>> full machine reflection, such that computations built on top can be made >>>> resilient to semantic paradoxes

That reflection won't add anything to the power of a turing machine;
there will be nothing your machines can do which a pure TM couldn't. It >>> is widely believed (though not, as far as I am aware proven) that there
are no machines more powerful than turing machines.

His reflection seems to enable a machine to see its context.

But the resulting machine won't be able to do anything a suitable turing machine couldn't.

It would point out a new way of looking at things that
has never been sufficiently evaluated before.

[ .... ]

The "halting problem" (the Halting Theorem) is resolved, and has been
for many decades.

Within a certain set of incorrect assumptions it is fully resolved.

You keep saying this, but you've never identified such an incorrect assumption. It's not even clear what you mean by "incorrect
assumptions".

I have repeatedly done this yet you are so sure
that I must be wrong that you cannot pay enough
attention.

The reason that I have to repeat some of these
things over and over with progressive refinements
is that everyone is so sure that I must be wrong
that that only glance at some of my words as
their entire basis to contrive a baseless rebuttal.

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int HHH1(ptr P);

int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}

HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...

HHH1 simulates DD that calls HHH(DD) that
returns to DD that returns to HHH1.

The behavior of DD simulated by HHH1 is the
same as the behavior of DD() executed from main.

The sound basis of this reasoning is the
semantics of the C programming language.

(a) Halt deciders are required to report on the
actual behavior that their actual input actually
specifies.

(b) The halting problem requires Halt deciders to
report on other than the actual behavior that their
actual input actually specifies making the halting
problem incorrect.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2