From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

These are finally the long sought words that do
resolve the halting problem to a category error.

Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from
their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
state on the basis that this [finite string] input
specifies or fails to specify a particular semantic
or syntactic property.
--
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 12/9/2025 4:27 PM, polcott wrote:

These are finally the long sought words that do
resolve the halting problem to a category error.

Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from
their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
state on the basis that this [finite string] input
specifies or fails to specify a particular semantic
or syntactic property.

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

int main()
{
HHH(DD);
}

Once we have a way to detect the sequence of
steps that the input to HHH(DD) specifies:

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

and this differs from what the halting problem
requires, then we know that the halting problem
is wrong by the above paragraph.



until HHH sees that
the behavior of DD correctly matches a correct
non-halting behavior pattern. Then HHH aborts it
simulation and returns 0 indicating rejection of
its input.
--
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 12/9/25 5:27 PM, polcott wrote:

These are finally the long sought words that do
resolve the halting problem to a category error.

Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from
their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
state on the basis that this [finite string] input
specifies or fails to specify a particular semantic
or syntactic property.

Nope, because the problem is the answer needs to be CORRECT.

And that isn't based on what the decider can do.

You are just proving that you are just a stupid liar that doesn't
believe in the meaning of words because you just don't care to know what
you are talking about.

The machine is only CAPABLE of generating an answer based on its finite manipulation of the input.

The CORRECT answer is based on the semantic property of RUNNING the
program that the input represents, which might need an infinite amount
of work, which the decider can't do.

The problem you forget is that determining a semantic property might not
be computable, perhaps because you don't understand what semantics are.

Like most thing, you confuse to different concept, thinking they are the
same, because you CHOSE to be ignorant, and thus made yourself a liar.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

polcott kirjoitti 10.12.2025 klo 0.27:

These are finally the long sought words that do
resolve the halting problem to a category error.

Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from
their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
state on the basis that this [finite string] input
specifies or fails to specify a particular semantic
or syntactic property.

The above paragraph (acutally just one sentence) does not prove or
even say anything about the halting problem.
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 12/10/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

polcott kirjoitti 10.12.2025 klo 0.27:

These are finally the long sought words that do
resolve the halting problem to a category error.

Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from
their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
state on the basis that this [finite string] input
specifies or fails to specify a particular semantic
or syntactic property.

The above paragraph (acutally just one sentence) does not prove or
even say anything about the halting problem.

It is the definition of a decider that the halting
problem violates.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
reliably computable.<br><br>

This required establishing a new foundation<br>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

olcott kirjoitti 10.12.2025 klo 15.04:

On 12/10/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:

polcott kirjoitti 10.12.2025 klo 0.27:

These are finally the long sought words that do
resolve the halting problem to a category error.

Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from
their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
state on the basis that this [finite string] input
specifies or fails to specify a particular semantic
or syntactic property.

The above paragraph (acutally just one sentence) does not prove or
even say anything about the halting problem.

It is the definition of a decider that the halting
problem violates.

Nothing in the problem statement violates any definition. You can't
even quote the alleged "violation".
--
Mikko
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On Tue, 09 Dec 2025 16:27:53 -0600, polcott wrote:

These are finally the long sought words that do resolve the halting
problem to a category error.

Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from their [finite
string] inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis that this
[finite string] input specifies or fails to specify a particular
semantic or syntactic property

Flibble was the first to claim the Halting Problem was a category error in this very forum.

Flibble has retracted that claim as he now believes that diagonalisation (proof by contradiction) is a valid, logically sound technique.

/HAL
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 12/11/2025 7:42 PM, HAL 9000 wrote:

On Tue, 09 Dec 2025 16:27:53 -0600, polcott wrote:

These are finally the long sought words that do resolve the halting
problem to a category error.

Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from their [finite
string] inputs to an accept or reject state on the basis that this
[finite string] input specifies or fails to specify a particular
semantic or syntactic property

Flibble was the first to claim the Halting Problem was a category error in this very forum.

Flibble's original view of category is easy to prove.

Turing machine deciders compute functions from finite
strings to {accept, reject}.

The halting problem itself requires that deciders
compute the behavior of executing machines, thus
category error flat out and simple.

Flibble has retracted that claim as he now believes that diagonalisation (proof by contradiction) is a valid, logically sound technique.

/HAL

When we look at it that way this only proves
that incorrect questions lack correct answers.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
reliably computable.<br><br>

This required establishing a new foundation<br>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 12/12/2025 01:48, olcott wrote:

The halting problem itself requires that deciders
compute the behavior of executing machines, thus
category error flat out and simple.

That seems right to me for any machine occupying a finite region of
space, at least.
--
Tristan Wibberley

The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 12/11/25 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:

Turing machine deciders compute functions from finite
strings to {accept, reject}.

The halting problem itself requires that deciders
compute the behavior of executing machines, thus
category error flat out and simple.

Why do you say that?

Since we have UTMs, we can show that the execution behavior of any
Turing Machine can be described with a finite string. A stirng that
properly encodes the algorithm used by the machine, and its input.

Flibble has retracted that claim as he now believes that diagonalisation
(proof by contradiction) is a valid, logically sound technique.

/HAL

When we look at it that way this only proves
that incorrect questions lack correct answers.

But there is nothing "incorrect" about the question.

All you are doing is showing you lack of understanding of the system.

It seems, in part, that you don't understand the nature of
representations, and how they can represent somewhat abstract concepts
when you have a powerful enough grammar to work within.

Turing Machines are such a grammar.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 13/12/2025 19:17, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/11/25 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:

Turing machine deciders compute functions from finite
strings to {accept, reject}.

The halting problem itself requires that deciders
compute the behavior of executing machines, thus
category error flat out and simple.

Why do you say that?

Since we have UTMs, we can show that the execution behavior of any
Turing Machine can be described with a finite string. A stirng that
properly encodes the algorithm used by the machine, and its input.

What about when the machine gets really hot, or left outside on a frosty morning?
--
Tristan Wibberley

The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 12/13/2025 11:28 AM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

On 13/12/2025 19:17, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/11/25 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:

Turing machine deciders compute functions from finite
strings to {accept, reject}.

The halting problem itself requires that deciders
compute the behavior of executing machines, thus
category error flat out and simple.

Why do you say that?

Since we have UTMs, we can show that the execution behavior of any
Turing Machine can be described with a finite string. A stirng that
properly encodes the algorithm used by the machine, and its input.

What about when the machine gets really hot, or left outside on a frosty morning?

A data center on a satellite getting cooled off by the cold of space? ;^)
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 12/13/2025 12:25 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

On 12/12/2025 01:48, olcott wrote:

The halting problem itself requires that deciders
compute the behavior of executing machines, thus
category error flat out and simple.

That seems right to me for any machine occupying a finite region of
space, at least.

That is great. It has taken my 22 years to get my
intuitions formalized as first principles.

I now have LLMs that understand that I refuted
the halting problem in ten pages of dialogue.
The prior dozen times always took 50 pages.

I am in the process of making my words so succinct
that people will understand that I am correct just
before they have any idea what I am talking about.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
reliably computable.<br><br>

This required establishing a new foundation<br>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 12/13/2025 1:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/11/25 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:

Turing machine deciders compute functions from finite
strings to {accept, reject}.

The halting problem itself requires that deciders
compute the behavior of executing machines, thus
category error flat out and simple.

Why do you say that?

All of the textbooks require halt deciders to
report on the behavior of machine M on input w.

Since no Turing machine ever takes any Machine
M as an input this <is> a category error even
when this make no difference.

We correct this error by saying that halt
deciders must report on the basis of the
behavior specified by their input finite string.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
reliably computable.<br><br>

This required establishing a new foundation<br>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 12/13/25 2:28 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:

On 13/12/2025 19:17, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/11/25 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:

Turing machine deciders compute functions from finite
strings to {accept, reject}.

The halting problem itself requires that deciders
compute the behavior of executing machines, thus
category error flat out and simple.

Why do you say that?

Since we have UTMs, we can show that the execution behavior of any
Turing Machine can be described with a finite string. A stirng that
properly encodes the algorithm used by the machine, and its input.

What about when the machine gets really hot, or left outside on a frosty morning?

Since they are mathematical constructs, those physicalities don't affect
them.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 12/13/25 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/13/2025 1:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/11/25 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:

Turing machine deciders compute functions from finite
strings to {accept, reject}.

The halting problem itself requires that deciders
compute the behavior of executing machines, thus
category error flat out and simple.

Why do you say that?

All of the textbooks require halt deciders to
report on the behavior of machine M on input w.

Since no Turing machine ever takes any Machine
M as an input this <is> a category error even
when this make no difference.

Which just shows you don't understand the concept of representation.

We correct this error by saying that halt
deciders must report on the basis of the
behavior specified by their input finite string.

And the behavior of that input finite string is the behavior of the
machine it represents, as demonstrated by a UTM using that same representation.

I guess you also think Turing Machines can't do arithmetic, as you can't
put numbers on the tape, only representations of them.

Or maybe you think that strings can't fully represent the Turing
Machines, which means you think UTMs don't exist, and thus you can't
argue base on your decider being based on a UTM.
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 12/13/2025 2:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/13/25 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/13/2025 1:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/11/25 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:

Turing machine deciders compute functions from finite
strings to {accept, reject}.

The halting problem itself requires that deciders
compute the behavior of executing machines, thus
category error flat out and simple.

Why do you say that?

All of the textbooks require halt deciders to
report on the behavior of machine M on input w.

Since no Turing machine ever takes any Machine
M as an input this <is> a category error even
when this make no difference.

Which just shows you don't understand the concept of representation.

So when you cut your face we can fix this by
putting a piece of tape on the picture of
your face?

It is that I do understand that a representation
of a thing is never exactly one-and-the-same as
that thing itself.

They simply glossed over the key detail because
they thought that it made not difference.

The perfectly accurate way of defining a halt
decider is

Turing machine halt deciders compute the mapping
from input finite strings to an {accept, reject}
value on the basis of the behavior that this
input finite string specifies.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott<br><br>

My 28 year goal has been to make <br>
"true on the basis of meaning expressed in language"<br>
reliably computable.<br><br>

This required establishing a new foundation<br>
--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.ai.philosophy

On 12/13/25 4:23 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/13/2025 2:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/13/25 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:

On 12/13/2025 1:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 12/11/25 8:48 PM, olcott wrote:

Turing machine deciders compute functions from finite
strings to {accept, reject}.

The halting problem itself requires that deciders
compute the behavior of executing machines, thus
category error flat out and simple.

Why do you say that?

All of the textbooks require halt deciders to
report on the behavior of machine M on input w.

Since no Turing machine ever takes any Machine
M as an input this <is> a category error even
when this make no difference.

Which just shows you don't understand the concept of representation.

So when you cut your face we can fix this by
putting a piece of tape on the picture of
your face?

What make you say that?

It is that I do understand that a representation
of a thing is never exactly one-and-the-same as
that thing itself.

Right, but can have all the needed properties to answer about the original.

For instance, when they were evaluating your tumor, did they decide what
to do by cutting into you and measure the tumor directly as their first action, no, the made a representation of the tumor with a scanner of
some form to make their plan of action.

They simply glossed over the key detail because
they thought that it made not difference.

Because for DECIDING if it halts, it doesn't.

The perfectly accurate way of defining a halt
decider is

Turing machine halt deciders compute the mapping
from input finite strings to an {accept, reject}
value on the basis of the behavior that this
input finite string specifies.

And the behavior of the finite string given as the input *IS* the
behavior of the machine it represents, so the question is still valid.

All you are doing is showing you don't understand how representations
work, or that Turing Machines almost always are working on
representations as few real problems are actually stated in terms of the arbitrary symbol set of the Turing Machine.

--- Synchronet 3.21a-Linux NewsLink 1.2