> How can we justify not steelmanning a ternary approach to halting? Can someone show me one proof which doesn’t rely on “muh do the opposite I don’t even unde

> How can we justify not steelmanning a ternary approach to halting? Can someone show me one proof which doesn’t rely on “muh do the opposite I don’t even understand what you are getting at. But humbling ourselves and learning new things, especially such influential thoughts that mathematical giants such as Gödel and Turing gifted us with (and were since refined by hundreds of very smart people) should be the first step. All these thoughts were refined over a century, or half. It’s not some proposition that sounds cool and might later be proven wrong. A Turing machine is fantastically simple and the halting problem is well-defined over it — it has n states, and one of them is labeled as HALT. Does it ever get to this state? There is no ternary option here. (Note: Turing didn’t even consider them halting, but used an equivalent problem)