XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: acm@muc.de   
      
   [ Followup-To: set ]   
      
   In comp.theory olcott  wrote:   
   > 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.   
      
      
   > It never has been that I do not understand   
   > the definitions of words it is that I have   
   > proven that some of these definitions are incorrect.   
      
   You do not understand these words.  You clearly don't understand what   
   "prove" means in mathematics, and you have been known to have a less than   
   scrupulous regard for the truth.  Your notion that you have "proven" some   
   incorrectness is nothing more than a spurious delusion of grandeur.   
      
   > *The definition of the halting problem is provably incorrect*   
      
   Garbage.  It is perfectly OK.  Do you really think that for such a simple   
   problem, known and understood by millions over nearly a century, any flaw   
   would not have already been found long ago?  You are intellectually not   
   up to the task; a typical student will understand the halting problem and   
   its resolution in at most a few hours.  You have spent 20 years and still   
   haven't got it.   
      
   >    
   [ Snip further garbage ]   
   >    
      
   [ .... ]   
      
   > --   
   > Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
      
   --   
   Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)