Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: sci.logic
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: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 19:24:52 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <c1d5c82c439cbb33e175c9125c67384f276d059e@i2pn2.org>
References: <vu6lnf$39fls$2@dont-email.me> <vua9oi$2lub6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vudkah$1ona3$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2025 23:25:22 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1749012"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <vudkah$1ona3$1@dont-email.me>

On 4/24/25 11:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 4/23/2025 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-04-21 23:52:15 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> Computer Science Professor Eric Hehner PhD
>>> and I all seem to agree that the same view
>>> that Flibble has is the correct view.
>>
>> Others can see that their justification is defective and contradicted
>> by a good proof.
>>
>> Some people claim that the unsolvability of the halting problem is
>> unproven but nobody has solved the problem.
>>
> 
> For the last 22 years I have only been refuting the
> conventional Halting Problem proof. Actually solving
> the Halting Problem requires making a computer program
> that is literally all knowing about program termination.

And you have failed, because you have chosen to not learn the language 
of the field and thus make stupid errors, that you refuse to fix, 
because you are just showing yourself too stupid.

> 
> When one understands that halt deciders are only allowed
> apply finite string transformations to input finite
> strings and
> 
> these transformations are defined by the language then it
> becomes unequivocally clear (if one bothers to pay complete
> attention and knows the x86 language) that the input to
> HHH(DD) is correctly rejected as non halting.
> 
> The behavior of the direct execution of DD cannot possibly
> be derived by applying the finite string transformation
> rules specified by the x86 language to the input to HHH(DD).
> 

And that is your error, because you don't understand what you are 
talking about,

The "behavior" is not the input, it is the property the output is 
supposed to descirbe.

The "input" is the representation of the program, which clearly CAN be 
provided. It is the job of the decider (and its programmer) to figure 
out the finite algorithm of transformation that gets from the input to 
the output.

There is no requirement that the answer be given in the input, just that 
is specifes enough that the behavior is fully specifed to the decider.

Since that same input could be given to a UTM (which will still use the 
decder, and not the UTM), and it could totally recreate the behavior of 
the machine, the input is sufficent to meet the requirements of the problem.

The fact that it is impossible for this decider to give the correct 
answer for this input just shows that it isn't a correct halt decider.

The fact we can show that we can do this for ANY halt decider, shows 
that no Halt Deciders that are always correct can exist.

It also shows that you are just too stupid to understand this simple 
logic as it hasn't sunk into your head after decades of work on it, 
because you are just stuck believing your own lies cause by your ignorance.