XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/20/2025 11:13 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   > [ 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 ]   
   >>    
   >   
   > [ .... ]   
   >   
      
   I have proven its key mistake.   
   I only did this very recently.   
   Below we have one half of this   
   proof of its mistake.   
      
   *Despicable lying scumbag bastards snip my proof*   
   The proof is not that ChatGPT agrees. The proof   
   is that this reasoning is provably sound.   
      
      
   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.   
      
      
      
   >> --   
   >> Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius   
   >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   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)