XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp   
      
   On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 14:26:27 -0500, olcott wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Partial decidability is not a hard problem.   
      
   /Flibble   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)