Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register

Groups > comp.theory > #137459

Ben Bacarisse 2022 objection finally fully addressed --- Version 4.0

Cross-posted to 3 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

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

When the halting problem requires a halt decider
to report on the behavior of a Turing machine this
is always a category error.

The corrected halting problem requires a Turing
machine decider to report in the behavior that
its finite string input specifies.

This analysis is in the C programming language so
that it is 100% concrete without any key details
being abstracted away.

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

(a) HHH(DD) does report on the behavior that its
input finite string specifies as measured by DD
simulated by HHH according to the semantics of
the C programming language.

(b) Reporting on anything else is outside of the
scope of Turing Machine Computable functions.

-- 
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.

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next | Find similar

Thread

Ben Bacarisse 2022 objection finally fully addressed --- Version 4.0 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-12-10 16:53 -0600

csiph-web