XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic   
   From: flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp   
      
   On Sun, 03 Aug 2025 11:17:26 -0500, olcott wrote:   
      
   > 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.   
      
   You cannot refute a conventional halting problem proof using a partial   
   decider as conventional halting problem proofs are predicated on total   
   deciders as per the definition of the halting problem.  How many more   
   times do I need to tell you this before it sinks in?   
      
   /Flibble   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)