XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/21/2025 4:10 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   > On 2025-07-20 15:36:51 +0000, olcott said:   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > That you think a definition is incorrect does not change the defined   
   > meaning. If you don't accept the definition the best you can do is   
   > that you don't use the term.   
   >   
      
   That I prove that a definition is derived from provably   
   false assumptions proves that this definition is incorrect.   
      
   No one here is capable of paying enough attention to my   
   proof that the halting problem definition is incorrect   
   because my proof requires two steps and no one here can   
   even pay attention to one step.   
      
   *This right here is a type mismatch error*   
   The simplest step is that no Turing machine decider   
   ever takes another directly executing Turing machine   
   as its input yet the halting problem requires a halt   
   decider to report on the behavior of the directly   
   executed machine.   
      
   This would not be an issue if the correct simulation   
   of a Turing machine description always had the exact   
   same behavior as the directly executed machine.   
      
   Everyone here sees that the behavior is not the same   
   and rules that the simulation is wrong because it   
   differs from the behavior of the direct execution.   
   *That is an incorrect measure of correct simulation*   
      
   --   
   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)