Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory,sci.logic,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: I have just proven the error of all of the halting problem proofs
 --- Mackenzie
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2025 21:43:31 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 120
Message-ID: <10643oj$1kad5$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> <105ljhk$9si$1@news.muc.de>
 <105lkj4$3v8t8$13@dont-email.me> <105lnn2$2srt$1@news.muc.de>
 <105lpsd$1mvr$1@dont-email.me> <105m9me$2phf$1@news.muc.de>
 <87frejvq2x.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <10633d2$2h0d$1@news.muc.de>
 <1063527$2gj29$3@dont-email.me> <10636r8$2gfp$1@news.muc.de>
 <1063a53$2htm2$1@dont-email.me> <FlahQ.10234$mUCf.7371@fx05.ams4>
 <1063c0t$2i6le$1@dont-email.me> <1063m2d$1isr9$1@dont-email.me>
 <1063n55$1j27o$1@dont-email.me> <6DdhQ.207706$Tc12.80723@fx17.iad>
 <1063p7u$1j8ei$1@dont-email.me> <TifhQ.163802$VlKa.72628@fx11.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2025 02:43:32 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ebb81b7e559f654a9ccbe84c63c0d5aa";
	logging-data="1714597"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19eFl/vgEl85l/OObWvqBqX"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:fucTwKVNMSS+puFwRhcgbib7NJA=
In-Reply-To: <TifhQ.163802$VlKa.72628@fx11.iad>
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250726-4, 7/26/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US

On 7/26/2025 8:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/26/25 7:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/26/2025 6:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/26/25 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/26/2025 5:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/26/2025 2:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/26/2025 2:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 14:26:27 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/26/2025 1:30 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The error of all of the halting problem proofs is that they 
>>>>>>>>>> require a
>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine halt decider to report on the behavior of a 
>>>>>>>>>> directly
>>>>>>>>>> executed Turing machine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is common knowledge that no Turing machine decider can take 
>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>> directly executing Turing machine as an input, thus the above
>>>>>>>>>> requirement is not precisely correct.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> When we correct the error of this incorrect requirement it 
>>>>>>>>>> becomes a
>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine decider indirectly reports on the behavior of a
>>>>>>>>>> directly executing Turing machine through the proxy of a 
>>>>>>>>>> finite string
>>>>>>>>>> description of this machine.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Now I have proven and corrected the error of all of the halting
>>>>>>>>>> problem proofs.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No you haven't, the subject matter is too far beyond your 
>>>>>>>>> intellectual
>>>>>>>>> capacity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It only seems to you that I lack understanding because you are 
>>>>>>>> so sure
>>>>>>>> that I must be wrong that you make sure to totally ignore the 
>>>>>>>> subtle
>>>>>>>> nuances of meaning that proves I am correct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No Turing machine based (at least partial) halt decider can 
>>>>>>>> possibly
>>>>>>>> *directly* report on the behavior of any directly executing Turing
>>>>>>>> machine.  The best that any of them can possibly do is 
>>>>>>>> indirectly report
>>>>>>>> on this behavior through the proxy of a finite string machine
>>>>>>>> description.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Partial decidability is not a hard problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My point is that all of the halting problem proofs
>>>>>> are wrong when they require a Turing machine decider
>>>>>> H to report on the behavior of machine M on input i
>>>>>> because machine M is not in the domain of any Turing
>>>>>> machine decider. Only finite strings such as ⟨M⟩ the
>>>>>> Turing machine description of machine M are its
>>>>>> domain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Definition of Turing Machine Ĥ
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.∞,
>>>>>    if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and        // incorrect requirement
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>    if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.    // incorrect requirement
>>>>>
>>>>> (a) Ĥ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> (b) Ĥ invokes embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> (c) embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> (d) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ copies its input ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> (e) simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ invokes simulated embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> (f) simulated embedded_H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ...
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that the correctly simulated input
>>>>> specifies recursive simulation prevents the
>>>>> simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ from ever reaching its simulated
>>>>> final halt state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩, thus specifies non-termination.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not contradicted by the fact that
>>>>> Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts because Ĥ is outside of
>>>>> the domain of every Turing machine computed function.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the atypical case where the behavior of the simulation
>>>> of an input to a potential halt decider disagrees with the
>>>> behavior of the direct execution of the underlying machine
>>>> (because this input calls this same simulating decider) it
>>>> is the behavior of the input that rules because deciders
>>>> compute the mapping for their inputs.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, just more of your lies.
>>>
>>> The behavior of an input to a halt decider is DEFINED in all cases to 
>>> be the behavior of the machine the input represents,
>>
>> Yet I have conclusively proven otherwise and
>> you are too stupid to understand the proof.
> 
> No, because you proof needs to call different inputs the same or partial 
> simulaiton to be correct.
> 

When HHH(DDD) simulates DDD it also simulates itself
simulating DDD because DDD calls HHH(DDD).

When HHH1(DDD) simulates DDD DOES NOT simulate itself
simulating DDD because DDD DOES NOT CALL HHH1(DDD).

For three fucking years everyone here pretended that
they could NOT fucking see that.

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