Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re=3A_Refutation_of_Turing=E2=80=99s_1936_Halting_Problem?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?_Proof_Based_on_Self-Referential_Conflation_as_a_Category_=28Type?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?=29_Error?=
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2025 20:50:04 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <a876b270bba281abff94937053e4b661b21eb0ab@i2pn2.org>
References: <TuuNP.2706011$nb1.2053729@fx01.ams4>
 <87cyd5182l.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <vu6lnf$39fls$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2025 00:53:35 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1343042"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <vu6lnf$39fls$2@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 2925
Lines: 39

On 4/21/25 7:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/21/2025 5:08 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> writes:
>>> This document refutes Alan Turing’s 1936 proof of the undecidability of
>>> the halting problem, as presented in “On Computable Numbers, with an
>>> Application to the Entscheidungsproblem” (Proceedings of the London
>>> Mathematical Society, 1936), by leveraging the assumption that self-
>>> referential conflation of a halt decider and its input constitutes a
>>> category (type) error. The refutation argues that Turing’s proof, which
>>> relies on a self-referential construction, is invalid in a typed system
>>> where such conflation is prohibited.
>>
>> You're acknowledging that it's an "assumption".
>>
>> Sure, *if* you **assume** that "self-referential conflation of a
>> halt decider and its input constitutes a category (type) error",
>> then Turing's proof is invalid in a system where that assumption
>> is true (if your terms can be rigorously defined).
>>
>> Of course Turing's proof wasn't intended to be interpreted in such
>> a system, and there is no actual self-reference.  If Turing's proof
>> actually relied on self-reference, you might have a valid claim.
>> The proposed halt decider does not operate on itself, or on a
>> reference to itself; it operates on a modified copy of itself.
>>
>> Are you ever going to answer my questions about Goldbach's
>> Conjecture?
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>
> 
> Computer Science Professor Eric Hehner PhD
> and I all seem to agree that the same view
> that Flibble has is the correct view.
> 

And many more disagree, so you are out voted so you argument by 
authority fails.

Sorry, you are just showing you don't understand what you are talking about.