XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/22/2025 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 7/21/25 11:50 PM, 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.   
   >>>   
   >>   
   >> When I say that DDD simulated by HHH does not   
   >> halt you dishonestly change the subject.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Because you are just showing you don't know English.   
   >   
      
   Not at all. You dishonestly change the subject to   
   something besides DDD simulated by HHH.   
      
    >>> It is a verified fact that the PROGRAM DDD halts   
    >>> since your HHH(DDD) returns 0.   
      
   Turing machine halt deciders cannot possibly take   
   directly executed Turing machines as inputs thus   
   the behavior of any directly executed machine has   
   always been outside of the domain of every Turing   
   machine halt decider.   
      
   Every time that any proof says that decider H is   
   reporting on whether machine M halts on input i   
   this has always been incorrect.   
      
   Turing machine halt deciders can only report on   
   the behavior that their finite string input specifies.   
      
   --   
   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)