XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 22.jul.2025 om 06:17 schreef olcott:   
   > On 7/21/2025 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   >> On 7/21/25 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >>> On 7/21/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:   
   >>>> On 2025-07-20 11:48:37 +0000, Mr Flibble said:   
   >>>>   
   >>>>> 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.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> It is also honest and truthful, which is not as common as it should.   
   >>>>   
   >>>   
   >>> It is also honest and truthful that people   
   >>> that deny verified facts are either liars   
   >>> or lack sufficient technical competence.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> Right, so YOU are the liar.   
   >>   
   >> It is a verified fact that the PROGRAM DDD halts since your HHH(DDD)   
   >> returns 0.   
   >>   
   >   
   > It is a self-evident truth that the halting problem proof   
   > has always been incorrect when it requires a halt decider   
   > to report on the behavior of the direct execution of any   
   > Turing machine because no Turing machine decider can ever   
   > take another directly executed Turing machine as its input.   
   As usual incorrect claims without evidence.   
   Nobody requires the halt decider to report on another direct execution.   
   The halt decider must decide on its input. In this case the input   
   specifies a DD that calls a HHH that aborts and returns, so the input   
   specifies a halting program.   
   That HHH fails to see that does not change the specification.   
   That this input specifies a halting program, is proven in many ways, of   
   which the direct execution is only one of them.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)