From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 12/2/2025 10:04 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 02/12/2025 14:56, Andy Walker wrote:

Limit your posts to 100 lines [50 would be better, and 25
better still] and again both the quality and the reach will
improve.

Or at the very least determine to post an article shorter than the one
to which it replies.

Dammit, people, learn to snip!

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

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

int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}

*Proof that HHH correctly rejects HHH*

(a) DD simulated by HHH according to the
semantics of the C programming language

(b) Cannot possibly reach its own "return"
statement final halt state

(c) While being simulated by HHH

Conclusively proves that behavior that the
input to HHH(DD) specifies is non-halting behavior.

That
(a) Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping
from their [finite string] inputs

(b) To an accept or reject state

(c) On the basis that this [finite string] input specifies
or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic property.

Proves that the halting problem, itself is incorrect
when it requires something else.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.

This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 11/30/2025 11:34 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2025-12-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/30/2025 7:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:

On 2025-11-30, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

HHH does correctly report that DD simulated
by HHH (according to the semantics of the C
programming language) does not halt.

(1) It is a fact that this input to HHH(DD) does specify
non-halting behavior according to this definition
that you erased:

An input DD that halts for a simulating termination
analyzer HHH is defined as DD reaching its own simulated
"return" statement while DD is being simulated by HHH.

(2) It is a fact that HHH reports this.

The key most important fact is that the halting
problem *is* a category error because it requires

If you think the problem is a "category error", then ... fucking
stop discussing cases of it, with elaborate claims about
termination behavors.

If it is the case that the whole problem is a category error,
then everything that follows is erroneous and that is that.

a halt decider to report on different behavior
than the actual behavior that its actual input
actually specifies.

If you believe that, then stop trying to make halt deciders
which do that, and then claim they are correct.

This makes everything else that you say below moot
AKA totally beside the point and irrelevant.

But that would only be because it refers to your simulation work
and the claims you have based on it, which under the assumption that
halting is errneous, are all erroneous.

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

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

int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}

*Proof that HHH correctly rejects HHH*

(a) DD simulated by HHH according to the
semantics of the C programming language

(b) Cannot possibly reach its own "return"
statement final halt state

(c) While being simulated by HHH

Conclusively proves that behavior that the
input to HHH(DD) specifies is non-halting behavior.

That
(a) Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping
from their [finite string] inputs

(b) To an accept or reject state

(c) On the basis that this [finite string] input specifies
or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic property.

Proves that the halting problem, itself is incorrect
when it requires something else.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott

My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.

This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2