Re: Unpartial Halt Decider 4.0

On 4/19/25 10:48 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 19:09:26 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
 

On 4/18/25 5:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 17:15:40 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>

And the rules of the game are that deciders must answer in finite
time.

>
Your perspective is:
>
Epistemic: knowledge must be actionable, and thus based on finite
computation.
>
Pragmatic: we need results in time, so knowing whether we’re in a loop
is more valuable than being able to analyze an infinite thing in an
infinite way.
>
This is totally reasonable — but my perspective is:
>
Not speaking about physical feasibility. I'm working in the theoretical
realm — just as Turing did.
>
/Flibble

>
But the problems still need the finiteness to have use.
>
Even in the theoretial, "proof" is still required to be finite, as are
deciders.
>
That is the basic rules of the theoretical system.

 Theorem (Flibble’s Model-Theoretic Parity Principle):
In any theoretical system that permits infinite computational behavior, a
decider analyzing that system may be equipped with equivalent infinite
resources, so long as both reside in a consistent meta-model.
 /Flibble

Not a Theroem, just a conjecture, if even that. More just a moral principle you want to impose on the system.
To call it a Theorem, you need to PROVE it from the existing axioms of the systems.
Sorry, you are just showing you don't understand what you are talking about.