XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   On 8/3/2025 11:03 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:   
   > On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 10:56:17 -0500, olcott wrote:   
   >   
   >> On 8/3/2025 10:45 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
      
   You are conflating the halting problem with its convetional proof.   
   They are not the same thing.   
      
   >> 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   
      
   I have not refuting the halting problem.   
   I have refuted the conventional halting problem proof.   
      
   Once this is fully understood the exact same reasoning   
   equally applies to the Tarksi Undefinability theorem.   
      
      
   --   
   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)