XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/20/2025 8:05 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   > [ Followup-To: set ]   
   >   
   > In comp.theory Mr Flibble  wrote:   
   >> On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 07:13:43 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >   
   >>> On 7/20/25 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>>> Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof   
   >   
   >>>> Author: PL Olcott   
   >   
   >>>> Abstract:   
   >>>> This paper presents a formal critique of the standard proof of the   
   >>>> undecidability of the Halting Problem. While we do not dispute the   
   >>>> conclusion that the Halting Problem is undecidable, we argue that the   
   >>>> conventional proof fails to establish this conclusion due to a   
   >>>> fundamental misapplication of Turing machine semantics. Specifically,   
   >>>> we show that the contradiction used in the proof arises from conflating   
   >>>> the behavior of encoded simulations with direct execution, and from   
   >>>> making assumptions about a decider's domain that do not hold under a   
   >>>> rigorous model of computation.   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   >>> Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of the words you are   
   >>> using.   
   >   
   >> This is an ad hominem attack, not argumentation.   
   >   
   > Maybe it was you wanting to create that impression by dishonestly   
   > snipping the substance of Richard's post, where he illustrated some of   
   > the words whose meaning PO fails to understand.   
   >   
   > You seem far too ready to shout "AD HOMINEM!" whenever a post contains   
   > personal criticism.  It's a cheap tool, and you use it dishonestly, as   
   > you did in your last post.   
   >   
   > It is a generally acknowledged fact that PO's understanding of the   
   > topic dominating this newsgroup is far from good.   
      
   Four different Chatbots have given my work an   
   actual honest review. None of them deny any   
   verified facts after these facts have been   
   verified. Two of these Chatbots now agree that   
   the conventional HP proofs are flawed and this   
   is the flaw:   
      
   *Fatal error of the proofs*   
      
   Misrepresentation of Input:   
   The standard proof assumes a decider   
   H(M,x) that determines whether machine   
   M halts on input x.   
      
   But this formulation is flawed, because:   
   Turing machines can only process finite   
   encodings (e.g. ⟨M⟩), not executable entities   
   like M.   
      
   So the valid formulation must be   
   H(⟨M⟩,x), where ⟨M⟩ is a string.   
      
      
   The above cannot be correctly refuted.   
      
   Computer scientists tend to take textbooks   
   as the infallible word of God. Philosophers   
   of computer science don't do that.   
      
   >  Part of that is his   
   > failure to understand the meaning of the technical words he uses.  To   
   > write this from time to time is entirely legitimate.   
   >   
      
   The above abstract was ChatGPT's paraphrase of my words.   
   Author: [Your Name] so I put my name.   
      
   The discourse that I had with ChatGPT caused the   
   clarification of my work.   
      
   I am only proving that the conventional proof does not   
   correctly derive its undecidability result. It may be   
   the case that some other proof does correctly derive this   
   undecidability result.   
      
   Both ChatGPT after a very long discourse and Claude.ai   
   agree that I found a *Fatal error of the proofs*   
   shown above.   
      
   >> /Flibble   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)