Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem
 Proof
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 10:57:38 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 168
Message-ID: <105vgu2$10847$1@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$6@dont-email.me> <bACfQ.684955$W5Jb.69295@fx09.iad>
 <105n1qi$bbj9$2@dont-email.me> <5MKfQ.127468$uM3d.59517@fx39.iad>
 <105obtn$hate$7@dont-email.me> <pXXfQ.4$mj1e.3@fx45.iad>
 <105pn1c$r41b$4@dont-email.me> <105q67b$8o3u$2@dont-email.me>
 <105qnq9$v75u$7@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2025 08:57:39 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d2b9948762abb6007aec64508e3b6d61";
	logging-data="1056903"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/jqAmJgk2Hs+7gf+RlaseZ"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:NyMdUQSRc1fK8I8GDl8KMSxA15s=
In-Reply-To: <105qnq9$v75u$7@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: nl, en-GB

Op 23.jul.2025 om 15:24 schreef olcott:
> On 7/23/2025 3:24 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 23.jul.2025 om 06:05 schreef olcott:
>>> On 7/22/2025 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/22/25 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/22/2025 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/21/25 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/21/2025 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 7/21/25 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Right, so YOU are the liar.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is a verified fact that the PROGRAM DDD halts since your 
>>>>>>>> HHH(DDD) returns 0.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I say that DDD simulated by HHH does not
>>>>>>> halt you dishonestly change the subject.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because you are just showing you don't know English.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all. You dishonestly change the subject to
>>>>> something besides DDD simulated by HHH.
>>>>
>>>> No, YOU changed the subject of the problem from the OBJECTIVE 
>>>> behavior of the execution of DDD, to the SUBJECTIVE criteria of what 
>>>> HHH sees.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Its been three years now and you can't remember*
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>      If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>      input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>>      would never stop running unless aborted then
>>>
>>>      H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>      specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Repeating the agreement with a vacuous statement is no rebuttal.
>> Since there is no H that correctly simulates D until it correctly 
>> detects that its D would never stop unless aborted', the conclusion is 
>> irrelevant.
>>
> 
> _DD()
> [00002162] 55             push ebp
> [00002163] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
> [00002165] 51             push ecx
> [00002166] 6862210000     push 00002162 // push DD
> [0000216b] e862f4ffff     call 000015d2 // call HHH
> [00002170] 83c404         add esp,+04
> [00002173] 8945fc         mov [ebp-04],eax
> [00002176] 837dfc00       cmp dword [ebp-04],+00
> [0000217a] 7402           jz 0000217e
> [0000217c] ebfe           jmp 0000217c
> [0000217e] 8b45fc         mov eax,[ebp-04]
> [00002181] 8be5           mov esp,ebp
> [00002183] 5d             pop ebp
> [00002184] c3             ret
> Size in bytes:(0035) [00002184]

As usual irrelevant and counter-factual claims without evidence.
Repeating irrelvant code does not help you.
Those 35 bytes are the least interesting part of the input. What is 
interesting is that HEH mus simulate itself, which it cannot do 
correctly up to the end.

        int main() {
          return HEH(main);
        }

Here is no DD and your own words are that it halts and HEH reports that 
it does not halt. HEH is unable to analyse its own behaviour and 
produces false negative in this case.

> 
> Counter-factual.
> That you do not understand the semantics of the
> x86 language well enough to understand that this
> is true is less than no rebuttal at all.

As usual irrelevant conter-factual claims without evidence.

> 
> In the several years that I have presenting this
> not one person has come up with a single correct
> rebuttal to the statement that DD emulated by HHH
> (according to the semantics of the x86 language)
> would ever stop running of not aborted.>
> All of the rebuttals either used the strawman
> deception to change the subject or were merely
> a statement that my statement was really really
> disbelieved. No one ever pointed out any actual error.

Many errors were shown. But you close your eyes and pretend that they do 
not exists. The same method is used in HEH. It does not see the final 
halt state and pretends it does not exist. Very childish.

> 
>> D halts even when not aborted, 
> 
> Neither DD simulated by HHH, HHH nor DD()
> halts unless HHH aborts its simulation of DD.

As usual irrelevant claim. HEH does abort, so dreaming of a HEH that 
does not, is irrelevant. So, indeed:

> Disagreement is merely a failure to understand.
> 
>> because it calls a function H that aborts and halts. The simulation of 
>> an aborting H has no need to be aborted.
>> Unless you change the input, but that is cheating.
> 
> Alternatively DD emulated by HHH cannot possibly
> reach its own "ret" instruction and halt no matter
> what HHH does.
> 

Proving that HEH fails to reach the final halt state, when better 
simulators have no problem with exactly the same input.