Refuting Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness Theorem in one sentence

[Univalence]

Once I actually publish my solution
to the halting problem I expect my credibility to shoot way up.

Still can’t tell if you are trolling or deeply delusional.

Why not show up at Doug’s doorstep with $6 million in funding.

Then you don’t need any credibility

[wtf]

Yes they are. The only way to truly see apparently is simply understanding direct intuitions
of the nature of truth. That only gets you to the thinking aspect of the mind. Understanding
categorically exhaustively complete reasoning get you the creative aspect of a mind. Once
you have thinking and creating, the rest is much easier. Once I actually publish my solution
to the halting problem I expect my credibility to shoot way up.

Well ok. You said truth is the sum total of all the aggregate semantic relationships in the world. If I'm saying that right.

So when we lived in caves there was a directed acyclic graph (why) of all the OOGs and AGGs we grunted at each other. And since this is ALL you need to know to COMPUTE the world, therefore my sitting here typing is a direct deterministic result of the aggregate graph of all prehistoric grunts.

You are some kind of determinist.

Am I understanding this?

[PeteOlcott]

Once I actually publish my solution
to the halting problem I expect my credibility to shoot way up.

Still can’t tell if you are trolling or deeply delusional.

Why not show up at Doug’s doorstep with $6 million in funding.

Then you don’t need any credibility

I don't understand any of these things at all.
I did find an execution trace of the conventional halting problem proof that no one ever noticed before.

I had to study the same two pages of a single textbook off and on for a total of about 2000 hours
over 14 years to notice this execution trace. It took me another three years to turn this
discovery into the source code for H and H^.

http://liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_318-319).pdf
With an OCD level of persistence "impossible" things can be accomplished.

[Univalence]

I don't understand any of these things at all.
I did find an execution trace of the conventional halting problem proof that no one ever noticed before.

I had to study the same two pages of a single textbook off and on for a total of about 2000 hours
over 14 years to notice this execution trace. It took me another three years to turn this
discovery into the source code for H and H^.

http://liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_318-319).pdf
With an OCD level of persistence "impossible" things can be accomplished.

Then you are a paragon for demonstrating why empiricism trumps scholasticism.

It doesn't take 3 years from idea to writing proof-of-concept code. Modern proof assistants like Coq support automatic code generation.
If you write a valid proof, you will get a corresponding algorithm for free (and in seconds). Talk about automating human effort, eh?

It's like writing unit tests in Behaviour-driven development only better.

But there is a key distinction that you seem to be missing here. The halting problem is not about execution traces. It's about a-priori prediction of whether a program will halt without actually having to run it.

If you remove self-reference from your language specification - recursion becomes impossible and then your language is no longer able to answers to questions like "What is the Nth number in the Fibonacci sequence?"

You don't seem to understand the difference between the Declarative and Imperative paradigms.

Mathematical proofs are declarative.
Mathematical objects which realize the proof-properties are imperative.

In fact, all this reminds me of a popular quote by Mark Twain.

"I can teach anybody how to get what they want out of life. The problem is that I can't find anybody who can tell me what they want.”

Writing a proof is much like declaring what you want.
Writing an algorithm is much like declaring HOW to get what you want.

[PeteOlcott]

But there is a key distinction that you seem to be missing here. The halting problem is not about execution traces. It's about a-priori prediction of whether a program will halt without actually having to run it.

How the hell do you know what its about have you solved the halting problem?

Unless and until you have solved the halting problem its pretty arrogant for you to say what its about.

[Univalence]

How the hell do you know what its about have you solved the halting problem?

Unless and until you have solved the halting problem its pretty arrogant for you to say what its about.

You haven't solved the halting problem.

You have neutered computation by declaring cyclical/recursive graphs 'illegal' despite their demonstrable utility.

Your strategy amounts to being a Grammar Nazi.
That's not how real-world problem solving works...

[PeteOlcott]

How the hell do you know what its about have you solved the halting problem?

Unless and until you have solved the halting problem its pretty arrogant for you to say what its about.

You haven't solved the halting problem.

You have neutered computation by declaring cyclical/recursive graphs 'illegal' despite their demonstrable utility.

Your strategy amounts to being a Grammar Nazi.
That's not how real-world problem solving works...

I wrote the full and complete source code for the Peter Linz H and
the H^ such that H correctly decides halting for (H^, H^).

[Univalence]

How the hell do you know what its about have you solved the halting problem?

Unless and until you have solved the halting problem its pretty arrogant for you to say what its about.

You haven't solved the halting problem.

You have neutered computation by declaring cyclical/recursive graphs 'illegal' despite their demonstrable utility.

Your strategy amounts to being a Grammar Nazi.
That's not how real-world problem solving works...

I wrote the full and complete source code for the Peter Linz H and
the H^ such that H correctly decides halting for (H^, H^).

You have solved a particular (and trivial) case of infinite loops, not the general case of the halting problem.

[PeteOlcott]

You haven't solved the halting problem.

You have neutered computation by declaring cyclical/recursive graphs 'illegal' despite their demonstrable utility.

Your strategy amounts to being a Grammar Nazi.
That's not how real-world problem solving works...

I wrote the full and complete source code for the Peter Linz H and
the H^ such that H correctly decides halting for (H^, H^).

You have solved a particular (and trivial) case, not the general case.

It looks like all that you have is presumption.
I provided the link to the two pages of text that I studied off and on for 2000 hours
for 14 years, go look as it see see that it is the general case. Please quit spouting
off presumptions they are dishonest.

[Univalence]

It looks like all that you have is presumption.
I provided the link to the two pages of text that I studied off and on for 2000 hours
for 14 years, go look as it see see that it is the general case. Please quit spouting
of presumptions they are dishonest.

I told you that I don't care about text, nor publications, nor references. You could publish this in every journal and win the Nobel Prize and the Turing award and you still can't convince me.

But if you give me an algorithm that I can run on my own computer. I will happily give you a malformed input that refutes your claim.

Living proof trumps God's word.

[PeteOlcott]

It looks like all that you have is presumption.
I provided the link to the two pages of text that I studied off and on for 2000 hours
for 14 years, go look as it see see that it is the general case. Please quit spouting
of presumptions they are dishonest.

I told you that I don't care about text, nor publications, nor references. You could publish this in every journal and win the Nobel Prize and the Turing award and you still can't convince me.

But if you give me an algorithm that I can run on my own computer. I will happily give you a malformed input that refutes your claim.

Living proof trumps God's word.

There are two uncompleted aspects to my solution:
(1) I have to finish writing the UTM interpreter.
(2) I will write a web service that executes the interpreter from a web page.

My solution to the halting problem only decides one very simple H/H^ pair
there are an infinite number of pairs where it would need to be adapted.
The general requirement for all of these solutions can be expressed in a
single sentence.

That it solved one of these pairs exactly matching the Peter Linz H/H^ spec
proves that the halting problem is solvable because the Peter Linz spec is the
conventional halting problem proof.

The reason that I stuck with the Peter Linz example since 2004 is that only this
example provides enough (state transition) detail to see what is really going on.

[Univalence]

It looks like all that you have is presumption.
I provided the link to the two pages of text that I studied off and on for 2000 hours
for 14 years, go look as it see see that it is the general case. Please quit spouting
of presumptions they are dishonest.

I told you that I don't care about text, nor publications, nor references. You could publish this in every journal and win the Nobel Prize and the Turing award and you still can't convince me.

But if you give me an algorithm that I can run on my own computer. I will happily give you a malformed input that refutes your claim.

Living proof trumps God's word.

You said that my solution to the Peter Linz halting problem is not the general case
when you could verify that a solution to the Peter Linz halting problem is the general case
thus you showed a disregard for the truth.

Strawman.

I have such high regard for truth that I have a toolbox full of tricks necessary to expose bullshitters who hide behind the veil of sophistry and academic ignorance

Such as yourself.

I can not verify anything until a solution is presented. An actual, working algorithm for the general case.

[PeteOlcott]

I told you that I don't care about text, nor publications, nor references. You could publish this in every journal and win the Nobel Prize and the Turing award and you still can't convince me.

But if you give me an algorithm that I can run on my own computer. I will happily give you a malformed input that refutes your claim.

Living proof trumps God's word.

You said that my solution to the Peter Linz halting problem is not the general case
when you could verify that a solution to the Peter Linz halting problem is the general case
thus you showed a disregard for the truth.

Strawman.

I have such high regard for truth that I have a toolbox full of tricks necessary to expose bullshitters who hide behind the veil of sophistry and academic ignorance

Such as yourself.

I can not verify anything until a solution is presented. An actual, working algorithm for the general case.

No room for Strawman in here:
I claim to have solved the Peter Linz halting problem.
You claim that my solution is a special case and does not apply to the general case.
It can be verified that any solution of the Peter Linz case does apply to the general case.

[Univalence]

You said that my solution to the Peter Linz halting problem is not the general case
when you could verify that a solution to the Peter Linz halting problem is the general case
thus you showed a disregard for the truth.

Strawman.

I have such high regard for truth that I have a toolbox full of tricks necessary to expose bullshitters who hide behind the veil of sophistry and academic ignorance

Such as yourself.

I can not verify anything until a solution is presented. An actual, working algorithm for the general case.

No room for Strawman in here:
I claim to have solved the Peter Linz halting problem.
You claim that my solution is a special case and does not apply to the general case.
It can be verified that any solution of the Peter Linz case does apply to the general case.

Then you should have no problem producing the algorithm then.

I am waiting...

Any programming language will do.

[PeteOlcott]

Strawman.

I have such high regard for truth that I have a toolbox full of tricks necessary to expose bullshitters who hide behind the veil of sophistry and academic ignorance

Such as yourself.

I can not verify anything until a solution is presented. An actual, working algorithm for the general case.

No room for Strawman in here:
I claim to have solved the Peter Linz halting problem.
You claim that my solution is a special case and does not apply to the general case.
It can be verified that any solution of the Peter Linz case does apply to the general case.

Then you should have no problem producing the algorithm then.

I am waiting...

Any programming language will do.

I have a couple of court cases to finish up first. At least we are on the same page now.
I made a claim and we have a mutually agreed process for validating that claim.