XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/22/2025 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 7/22/25 12:17 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > If it seems "self-evident" to you, that just shows how warped you ideas   
   > are of what the field means.   
   >   
      
   In this field it is common knowledge that no Turing machine   
   decider ever takes another directly executed Turing machine   
   as its input.   
      
   This means that Linz is wrong that machine M   
   should report on the behavior of its own direct   
   execution as his words state below.   
      
   WM is the machine description of M   
      
   q0 WM ⊢* Ĥq0 WM WM ⊢* Ĥ∞,   
       if M applied to WM halts, and   
   q0 WM ⊢* Ĥq0 Wm WM ⊢* Ĥ y1 qn y2,   
       if M applied to WM does not halt.   
      
   TM's can only compute the mapping from inputs and M   
   is not an input.   
   https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP_317-320.pdf   
      
      
   --   
   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)