Sujet : Re: Position Paper: Why Simulating Halt Deciders (SHDs) Require a Reframing of the Halting Problem
De : polcott333 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (olcott)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 24. May 2025, 19:19:54
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <100t2ka$ro5e$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 5/24/2025 1:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2025 12:38:20 -0500, olcott wrote:
My SHD refutes the classical halting problem proof that same way that
ZFC refutes Russell's Paradox.
ZFC Doesn’t Refute Russell’s Paradox — It Avoids It
ZFC doesn’t show Russell’s paradox is false — it restricts the language so
that the paradoxical construction is no longer valid.
Likewise, your SHD does not refute the Halting Problem proof — it merely
redefines the space of programs it will consider.
📌 Conclusion: Avoiding a contradiction by changing rules is not the same
as disproving it.
Proving that the rules have always been incoherent nonsense
does seem to refute them.
-- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Geniushits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Re: Position Paper: Why Simulating Halt Deciders (SHDs) Require a Reframing of the Halting Problem
Re: Position Paper: Why Simulating Halt Deciders (SHDs) Require a Reframing of the Halting Problem