XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp   
      
   On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 10:56:17 -0500, olcott wrote:   
      
   > On 8/3/2025 10:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:   
   >> On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 10:43:25 -0500, olcott wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> When the halting problem proof claims that it has proven that no   
   >>> universal halt decider HHH can possibly exist on the basis that no   
   >>> algorithm exists that returns a Boolean value that corresponds to the   
   >>> behavior of this input DD:   
   >>>   
   >>> int DD()   
   >>> {   
   >>>     int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);   
   >>>     if (Halt_Status)   
   >>>       HERE: goto HERE;   
   >>>     return Halt_Status;   
   >>> }   
   >>>   
   >>> _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]   
   >>>   
   >>> This halting problem proof is proved wrong because the recursive   
   >>> structure of DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its   
   >>> final halt state at machine address [00002184] thus HHH(DD)==0 is   
   >>> correct.   
   >>   
   >> Yet again I have to point out to you the following:   
   >>   
   >> Halting problem proofs are predicated on total deciders so cannot be   
   >> refuted using partial deciders.   
   >>   
   >> /Flibble   
   >   
   > You are incorrect about that.   
      
   No I am correct about that: you do not get to change definition of the   
   halting problem unless you are working on a different problem.   
      
   > They propose that no universal halt decider exists is proven entirely on   
   > the basis that HHH(DD) has no correct answer.   
   >   
   > It may be the case that no universal halt decider exists, yet the   
   > conventional proofs do not prove that.   
      
   Again: your work is unrelated to the halting problem and is sufficiently   
   uninteresting to be considered a waste of 22 years of effort.   
      
   /Flibble   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)