Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem
 Proof
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 08:50:22 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <105o4uu$g4mg$4@dont-email.me>
References: <105ht1n$36s20$1@dont-email.me>
 <eed26ffea811a639a76d0184321c57eafba746cd@i2pn2.org>
 <pI4fQ.147044$gKRf.71824@fx12.ams4> <105kvub$2q17h$1@dont-email.me>
 <105lg9k$3v8t8$6@dont-email.me> <105npl8$37i2t$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2025 15:50:22 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a14401adad5651a253e4d054a1d0c031";
	logging-data="529104"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+fGjo21xb/e3Nj5/Nl7uRp"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iSjBKQp6Allm4K+EAKCi+lvacqs=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250722-2, 7/22/2025), Outbound message
In-Reply-To: <105npl8$37i2t$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean

On 7/22/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-07-21 13:45:24 +0000, olcott said:
> 
>> On 7/21/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-07-20 11:48:37 +0000, Mr Flibble said:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> It is also honest and truthful, which is not as common as it should.
>>
>> It is also honest and truthful that people
>> that deny verified facts are either liars
>> or lack sufficient technical competence.
> 
> Where I live it is a crime to call anyone a liar or lacinkg sufficient
> technical compoetence unless a judge accepts your proof of your claims.
> 

I have proven that my claims are self-evidently
true on the basis of the meaning of their words
and the meaning of the code samples that I have
provided.

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

When anyone says that DDD correctly simulated by
HHH reaches its own "return" statement final halt
state if we just wait long enough this is either
a lie or a lack of sufficient technical competence.

With defamation of character cases when one person
lies about another person as much as all of their
personal property can be taken away. Defamation of
character is not a crime it is a tort.

-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer