Re: Every sufficiently competent C programmer knows --- Truthmaker Maximalism

On 3/14/2025 11:58 AM, wij wrote:

On Fri, 2025-03-14 at 11:33 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 11:01 AM, wij wrote:

On Fri, 2025-03-14 at 10:51 -0500, olcott wrote:

On 3/14/2025 10:04 AM, wij wrote:

On Fri, 2025-03-14 at 09:35 -0500, olcott wrote:>>

void DDD()
{
      HHH(DDD);
      return;
}
>
DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach
its own "return" instruction in any finite number of
correctly simulated steps.
>
That you are clueless about the semantics of something
as simple as a tiny C function proves that you are not
competent to review my work.
>

>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description
of
an
arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue
to
run
forever.
>
That means: H(D)=1 if D() halts and H(D)=0 if D() does not halt.
>
But, it seems you don't understand English, as least as my level, ....
>
>
>

>
void DDD()
{
     HHH(DDD);
     return;
}
>
The only difference between HHH and HHH1 is that they are
at different locations in memory. DDD simulated by HHH1
has identical behavior to DDD() directly executed in main().
>
The semantics of the finite string input DDD to HHH specifies
that it will continue to call HHH(DDD) in recursive simulation.
>
The semantics of the finite string input DDD to HHH1 specifies
to simulate to DDD exactly once.
>
When HHH(DDD) reports on the behavior that its input finite
string specifies it can only correctly report non-halting.
>
When HHH(DDD) is required to report on behavior other than
the behavior that its finite string specifies HHH is not
a decider thus not a halt decider.
>
All deciders are required to compute the mapping from
their input finite string to the semantic or syntactic property
that this string specifies. Deciders return true when this
string specifies this property otherwise they return false.
>

>
Are you solving The Halting Problem or not? Yes or No.
>
>

>
I have only correctly refuted the conventional halting
problem proof. Actually solving the halting problem
requires a program that is ALL KNOWING thus God like.

 I (GUR) had told you God cannot solve HP neither (maybe because the problem is limited in a box)
 

When we define the HP as having H return a value
corresponding to the halting behavior of input D
and input D can actually does the opposite of whatever
value that H returns, then we have boxed ourselves
in to a problem having no solution.
When we define the problem as the behavior that input
finite string DD specifies as measured by N steps of
DD correctly simulated by HHH then this DD cannot
possibly reach the self-contradictory portion of its
own code. This DD simply remains stuck in recursive
simulation for each of the N steps that HHH correctly
simulates.

My actual specialty for the last 21 years is overcoming
how pathological self-reference has thwarted the correct
evaluation of expressions of language.

 TM reads symbols, or just 1 and 0, there is no 'semantics'
(pathological self-reference) there.
 

Of this very narrow and specific focus it seems that I
have more knowledge than anyone else in the world.

 POO Halt seems based on the liar's paradox. But the HP proof is
not really isomorphic to liar's paradox. If HP proof is explained
in that way for convenience reasons.
 

When H must report on the halting behavior of input D
and D is able to do the opposite of whatever value that
H reports this is exactly the same self-contradictory
pattern as the Liar Paradox.

The closest related field to my work is the philosophy
of Truth-maker maximalism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truthmakers/#Max
gonzalo rodriguez-pereyra seems to be the leading
author in this field.
>

 You are solving philosophical problem, not HP.
 

The HP is one example of the philosophical problem
that I am solving.

I have only worked on the subset of truth where the
truth of expressions of language only depends on a
connection to their semantic meaning expressed in
this same language (Olcott analytic truth).

 You don't even understand the logical IF. what can I say?
 

The logical "if" of implication is not the logical "if"
of C programming.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer