From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 12/6/2025 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:

On 12/6/2025 6:16 AM, olcott wrote:

On 12/6/2025 1:34 AM, dart200 wrote:

On 12/5/25 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/4/25 3:22 AM, dart200 wrote:

keep in mind: all real TMs exist, undecidable machines do not exist.

But "Undecidability" isn't about a particular "machine", but about a
general problem, a total MAPPING of the (infinite) set of inputs to
there respective output. It is the statement that there can not
exist a "Program" (as defined by the theory, which are finite
definite algorithms) that can recreate the mapping.

For halting, every given program is know to either halt or not, the
problem is to be able to universally give that answer correctly in
finite time. THAT can't be done (universally, i.e. for any possible
input machine).

see, if we do not have a general halting decider then there must be >>>>> some input machine L, which is the first machine in the full
enumeration who's halting semantics cannot be decided up for some
kind of semantics (like halting).

No, it means that for every machine in that enumeration, there is a
machine that it will give a wrong answer to (or fail to answer), and

let me boil this down:

all "proven" examples of what are actually hypothetical machines that
could not be decided upon, not only do not exist, they actually could
not exist... and therefore they *do not* and *will not* come up in a
full enumeration of machines

so what is the *real* example of a machine that demonstrably cannot
be decided upon???

if you tell me: look at these hypothetical undecidable machine that
cannot exist, but from that we can just extrapolate *real* forms of
such machines that certainly can exist ... ???

but like ok, if ur so certain they *must* exist, what is an example
of one???

i'm not buying this whole if hypotheticals can be presented, then
certainly *real* variations of it exist ... where else would
hypothesizing about something just like fucking imply non-
hypothetical forms of it actually exist as real constructs???

what that input machine is, can very well differ depending on which
machine in the enumeration you are looking at.

well, first off: all the proofs for undecidability use purely
hypothetical machines, which then are declared to not exist, so
none of those machines could be *real* machine L.

Not "ALL", but the classic one. and the input derived WOULD BE a
real machine if the decider it was built on was an actual machine.

so what is this proposed non-hypothetical *real* machine L that
then cannot be decided?

But that isn't the claim. It isn't that there is a specific machine
L that can't be decided, and in fact, there can't be such a machine,
as there are two poor deciders, we can all Yes, and No, that always
answer for every input their given answer, ONE of those MUST be
right, so there can not be a single specific machine that all get
wrong.

That idea is just part of Peter Olcotts stupidity and misunderstanding. >>>>

and could that machine L even exist?

let's say someone found that limit L and demonstrated this property >>>>> that it cannot be decided upon by a halting decider ... but then
next step in undecidable proofs is to declare the machine's non-
existence, because an undecidable machine is also not a
deterministic machine, which ultimately contradicts the fact that
this limit machine L was suppose to actually *exist*, so how could
it ever exist?

and if the limit machine L does not actually exist, then how are TM >>>>> semantics not generally decidable???

good god guys, it's so tiring arguing against what is seemingly
irreconcilable nonsense. but bring it on my dudes, how do u think
i'm wrong this time???

And your problem he is you are working on the wrong problem, because
"someone" has spewed out so much misinformaiton that he has reduced
the intelligence of the world.

no bro, please read this carefully: these really are my own thots
that i've mostly developed on my own without much external validation
anywhere. polcott is an interesting character, but we haven't yet
seen eye to eye enough for much influence to happen either way

unlike polcott, i'm personally not sure what to do about godel's
incompleteness, and i'm not making claims about it because it's just
outside the scope i'm trying to address

i'm trying to address the theory of computing, not math as a whole

The problem isn't that some given machine can't be decided if it
halts or not, but that for every machine that claims to be a
decider, there will be an input for which it gives the wrong answer,
or it fails to answers.

i know this is hard to really consider:

what is an example of a *real machine that exists*, where this
behavior demonstrably happens???

sure you can throw around hypothetical examples of undecidable
machines all day long, i've spent a lot of time considering them
myself, probably more than you actually...

but like what about a *real* machine, that *actually exists*???

Now, a side effect of this fact, it becomes true that there exists
some machine/input combinations that we can not know if they halt or
not, but another side effect of this is we can't tell if a given
machine is one of them, as by definition any machine we can't know
if it halts or not, must be non-halting, as any halting machine can
be proven to halt, just by running it for enough steps.

honestly richard, i think i just stumbled right into a core
contradiction baked into the theory of computing that has gone almost
entirely unnoticed besides a few "cranks" on the internet,

none of which have put it so succinctly like i've done so in the last
day

It looks like I am first to have fully refuted the Halting Problem
and Gödel's Incompleteness. They are both in the same paper.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398375553_Halting_Problem_Proof_Counter-Example_is_Isomorphic_to_the_Liar_Paradox

Halting Problem Proof Counter-Example is Isomorphic to the Liar Paradox https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCHPP-3.pdf
Same file without broken link

--
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