Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 12:10:32 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <105l068$2q2ce$1@dont-email.me>
References: <105ht1n$36s20$1@dont-email.me> <eed26ffea811a639a76d0184321c57eafba746cd@i2pn2.org> <pI4fQ.147044$gKRf.71824@fx12.ams4> <105ipi1$67q$1@news.muc.de> <105j2ej$3dqi8$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:10:33 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="075f97bd3ead790450942e7368e081b0";
	logging-data="2951566"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19mSMg+z/ye/McW/tdiDPom"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:gsa5/8ikVdtgEr+FBLSYQ16Wzxk=

On 2025-07-20 15:36:51 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/20/2025 8:05 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>> 
>> In comp.theory Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 07:13:43 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 
>>>> On 7/20/25 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof
>> 
>>>>> Author: PL Olcott
>> 
>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>> This paper presents a formal critique of the standard proof of the
>>>>> undecidability of the Halting Problem. While we do not dispute the
>>>>> conclusion that the Halting Problem is undecidable, we argue that the
>>>>> conventional proof fails to establish this conclusion due to a
>>>>> fundamental misapplication of Turing machine semantics. Specifically,
>>>>> we show that the contradiction used in the proof arises from conflating
>>>>> the behavior of encoded simulations with direct execution, and from
>>>>> making assumptions about a decider's domain that do not hold under a
>>>>> rigorous model of computation.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of the words you are
>>>> using.
>> 
>>> This is an ad hominem attack, not argumentation.
>> 
>> Maybe it was you wanting to create that impression by dishonestly
>> snipping the substance of Richard's post, where he illustrated some of
>> the words whose meaning PO fails to understand.
> 
> It never has been that I do not understand
> the definitions of words it is that I have
> proven that some of these definitions are incorrect.

That you think a definition is incorrect does not change the defined
meaning. If you don't accept the definition the best you can do is
that you don't use the term.

-- 
Mikko