XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/23/2025 3:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:   
   > Op 23.jul.2025 om 06:05 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, 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.   
   >>    
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > Repeating the agreement with a vacuous statement is no rebuttal.   
   > Since there is no H that correctly simulates D until it correctly   
   > detects that its D would never stop unless aborted', the conclusion is   
   > irrelevant.   
   >   
      
   _DD()   
   [00002162] 55             push ebp   
   [00002163] 8bec           mov ebp,esp   
   [00002165] 51             push ecx   
   [00002166] 6862210000     push 00002162 // push DD   
   [0000216b] e862f4ffff     call 000015d2 // call HHH   
   [00002170] 83c404         add esp,+04   
   [00002173] 8945fc         mov [ebp-04],eax   
   [00002176] 837dfc00       cmp dword [ebp-04],+00   
   [0000217a] 7402           jz 0000217e   
   [0000217c] ebfe           jmp 0000217c   
   [0000217e] 8b45fc         mov eax,[ebp-04]   
   [00002181] 8be5           mov esp,ebp   
   [00002183] 5d             pop ebp   
   [00002184] c3             ret   
   Size in bytes:(0035) [00002184]   
      
      
   Counter-factual.   
   That you do not understand the semantics of the   
   x86 language well enough to understand that this   
   is true is less than no rebuttal at all.   
      
   In the several years that I have presenting this   
   not one person has come up with a single correct   
   rebuttal to the statement that DD emulated by HHH   
   (according to the semantics of the x86 language)   
   would ever stop running of not aborted.   
      
   All of the rebuttals either used the strawman   
   deception to change the subject or were merely   
   a statement that my statement was really really   
   disbelieved. No one ever pointed out any actual error.   
      
   > D halts even when not aborted,   
      
   Neither DD simulated by HHH, HHH nor DD()   
   halts unless HHH aborts its simulation of DD.   
   Disagreement is merely a failure to understand.   
      
   > because it calls a function H that aborts   
   > and halts. The simulation of an aborting H has no need to be aborted.   
   > Unless you change the input, but that is cheating.   
      
      
   --   
   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)