• Ben's objection finally fully addressed --- much more clearly

    From olcott@NoOne@NoWhere.com to comp.theory,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ on Tue Dec 9 18:09:08 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

    On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:

    *Original context*
    On 10/14/2022 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:
    Professor Sipser has agreed that this is the correct criteria:

    If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input
    D until H correctly determines that its simulated D would
    never stop running unless aborted then H can abort its
    simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a
    non-halting sequence of configurations.


    I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H (it's
    trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P)
    *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. He knows and accepts that
    P(P) actually does stop. The wrong answer is justified by what would
    happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are.


    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.

    Professor Sipser only agreed with a tautology.

    I will rephrase this tautology into terms that
    are more unequivocal.

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

    int main()
    {
    HHH(DD);
    }

    DD is simulated by HHH according to the semantics
    of the C programming language.

    HHH watches the behavior of its simulated DD
    step-by-step until it sees the recursive
    simulation non-halting behavior pattern.

    This is the correct measure of the behavior that
    the input to HHH(DD) actually specifies.

    The provably correct first paragraph requires
    that HHH report on this basis.

    The halting problem itself derives a category
    error by requiring that HHH report on any other
    behavior.

    The behavior that the halting problem incorrectly
    requires is the behavior of DD() executed from main
    that calls HHH(DD).

    The caller of a function is certainly not
    one-and-the-same thing as an argument to
    this same function.
    --
    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 polcott@polcott333@gmail.com to comp.theory,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.c++ on Tue Dec 9 21:15:54 2025
    From Newsgroup: comp.lang.c

    On 12/9/2025 6:09 PM, olcott wrote:
    --
    Copyright 2025 Olcott

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

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