XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 23.jul.2025 om 05:17 schreef olcott:   
   > 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,   
   > You are a fucking liar as anyone case see by my preceding sentence.   
   >   
   As usual invalid claims without evidence.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)