XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/22/2025 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:   
   > On 7/22/25 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > No, YOU changed the subject of the problem from the OBJECTIVE behavior   
   > of the execution of DDD, to the SUBJECTIVE criteria of what HHH sees.   
   >   
      
   *Its been three years now and you can't remember*   
      
        If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its   
        input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D   
        would never stop running unless aborted then   
      
        H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D   
        specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.   
      
      
      
   --   
   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)