Re: Position Paper: Why Simulating Halt Deciders (SHDs) Require a Reframing of the Halting Problem

On 5/24/2025 1:24 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sat, 24 May 2025 13:19:54 -0500, olcott wrote:
 

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paradoxical construction is no longer valid.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.

 There’s no “incoherence” in the model itself — only undecidability, which
is expected from systems that support recursion, self-reference, and
unbounded computation.
 

*THIS IS AN INCOHERENT REQUIREMENT*
int main()
{
   DD(); // the HHH that DD calls cannot report on
}       // the behavior of its caller
When the rules require that HHH report on the behavior
of the direct execution of its input that requires
HHH to report on the behavior of its caller.

You do not have a mathematical refutation — you instead have a meta-
theoretical rejection.
 /Flibble

When a math problem requires the non-empty
intersection of the sets of cats and dogs
it is the requirement that is incorrect.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer