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: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 13:33:16 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <105npdc$37gv6$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> <105l068$2q2ce$1@dont-email.me> <105lgvh$3v8t8$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 10:33:17 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="f2e784172421bb996d370d0f2a054316";
	logging-data="3392486"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/CNzdOIF62rkLWIf09Lrzn"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:kHJWatdfOE8TBY3sCY4kknanKeA=

On 2025-07-21 13:57:04 +0000, olcott said:

> On 7/21/2025 4:10 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> That I prove that a definition is derived from provably
> false assumptions proves that this definition is incorrect.

No, it does not. Definitions are what they are. How they are derived
does not matter. It is a category error to say that a defintion is
incorrect.

> No one here is capable of paying enough attention to my
> proof that the halting problem definition is incorrect
> because my proof requires two steps and no one here can
> even pay attention to one step.

It is sufficient to note that "definition is incorrect" is a category
error and consequently a "proof" of that is bogus.

-- 
Mikko