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

On Sat, 24 May 2025 13:42:44 -0500, olcott wrote:
 

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paradoxical construction is no longer valid.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.

 This continues your pattern of **recasting the Halting Problem proof as
logically incoherent**, rather than merely undecidable. You maintain that
requiring a decider (HHH) to report on the behavior of its caller (DD)
constitutes an **illegitimate or contradictory requirement**.
 Let’s break this down analytically.
 ---
 ## 🧠 Your Key Assertion
 

"*When the rules require that HHH report on the behavior of its input,

that requires HHH to report on the behavior of its caller. THAT is
incoherent.*"
 ### Interpretation:
 * You argue that when DD calls HHH on itself, **HHH is logically being
asked to report on its own calling context** — i.e., DD’s behavior.

* You claim that this creates **a feedback loop** where HHH’s output
influences DD’s behavior, which then invalidates HHH’s prediction.