XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math   
   From: 643-408-1753@kylheku.com   
      
   On 2025-10-22, olcott  wrote:   
   > On 10/20/2025 10:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:   
   >>> And when I identify a flaw yo simply ignore   
   >>> whatever I say.   
   >>   
   >> Nope; all the ways you say claim you've identified a flaw have been   
   >> dissected by multiple poeple to a much greater detail than they deserve.   
   >>   
   >> It is disingenuous to say that you've simply had your details ignored.   
   >>   
   >   
   > Turing machines in general can only compute mappings   
   > from their inputs. The halting problem requires computing   
   > mappings that in some cases are not provided in the   
   > inputs therefore the halting problem is wrong.   
      
   The halting problem positively does not propose anything   
   like that, which would be gapingly wrong.   
      
   > Blah, Blah Blah, no Olcott you are wrong, I know   
   > that you are wrong because I simply don't believe you.   
      
   You are wrong because I (1) don't see that gaping flaw in the   
   definition of the halting problem, (2) you don't even   
   try to explain how such that flaw can be. Where, how, why   
   is any decider being asked to decide something other than   
   an input representable as a finite string.   
      
   I've repeated many times that the diagonal case is constructable as a   
   finite string, whose halting status can be readily ascertained.   
      
   Because it's obvious to me, of course I'm going to reject   
   baseless claims that simply ask me to /believe/ otherwise.   
      
   --   
   TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr   
   Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal   
   Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)