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.   
   >   
      
   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.   
      
   *The definition of the halting problem is provably incorrect*   
      
      
   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.   
      
      
   > 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.  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.   
   >   
   >> /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)