XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl   
      
   Op 23.jul.2025 om 15:19 schreef olcott:   
   > 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]   
      
   Why repeating irrelevant code? Those 35 bytes are the least interesting   
   part of the input. It is HHH that must simulate itself that is interesting.   
      
           int main() {   
             return HHH(main);   
           }   
      
   Even without DD we see the same problem. Your own words are that it   
   halts but reports that it does not halt. HHH is unable to analyse its   
   own behaviour. It produces false negative in such cases.   
      
   >   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   As usual irrelevant and counter factual claim.   
   Even if I did not understand it, you cannot find an error in the logic.   
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   Irrelevant and counter-factual claim. Closing your eyes for those   
   errors does not make them disappear. But seems to belong to your logic.   
   HHH uses the same logic: it does not see the final halt state and   
   pretends that it does not exist. Very childish.>   
   >> D halts even when not aborted,   
   >   
   > Neither DD simulated by HHH, HHH nor DD()   
   > halts unless HHH aborts its simulation of DD.   
      
   As usual irrelevant claims.   
   What is relevant is that HHH does abort. This aborting HHH is presented   
   in the input. That makes DD a halting program. Dreaming of a   
   hypothetical non-aborting HHH is irrelevant.   
      
   > 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.   
   >   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)