| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vudkah$1ona3$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> 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 10:11:13 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 35 Message-ID: <vudkah$1ona3$1@dont-email.me> References: <vu6lnf$39fls$2@dont-email.me> <vua9oi$2lub6$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 17:11:13 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8278b879b49e14b6990f113f300251ec"; logging-data="1858883"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19LjxA9SuttnIZN+vZOpQdB" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:6tZOoytf5A85Ug/usnsgpcNJ4ZY= Content-Language: en-US X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250424-10, 4/24/2025), Outbound message In-Reply-To: <vua9oi$2lub6$1@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Bytes: 2637 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. 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). -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer