XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 7/26/2025 1:30 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:   
   > In comp.theory olcott  wrote:   
   >   
   >> The error of all of the halting problem proofs is   
   >> that they require a Turing machine halt decider to   
   >> report on the behavior of a directly executed   
   >> Turing machine.   
   >   
   >> It is common knowledge that no Turing machine decider   
   >> can take another directly executing Turing machine as   
   >> an input, thus the above requirement is not precisely   
   >> correct.   
   >   
   >> When we correct the error of this incorrect requirement   
   >> it becomes a Turing machine decider indirectly reports   
   >> on the behavior of a directly executing Turing machine   
   >> through the proxy of a finite string description of this   
   >> machine.   
   >   
   >> Now I have proven and corrected the error of all of the   
   >> halting problem proofs.   
   >   
   > No you haven't, the subject matter is too far beyond your intellectual   
   > capacity.   
   >   
      
   It only seems to you that I lack understanding because   
   you are so sure that I must be wrong that you make sure   
   to totally ignore the subtle nuances of meaning that proves   
   I am correct.   
      
   No Turing machine based (at least partial) halt decider   
   can possibly *directly* report on the behavior of any   
   directly executing Turing machine.  The best that any   
   of them can possibly do is indirectly report on this behavior   
   through the proxy of a finite string machine description.   
      
      
   --   
   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)