Deutsch   English   Français   Italiano  
<vujkuj$39g88$1@dont-email.me>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Refutation of the Halting Problem Assuming the Self-Referential
 Paradox is a Category Error --- Linz Proof
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 16:58:42 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <vujkuj$39g88$1@dont-email.me>
References: <HLbPP.1552551$Kb9a.668758@fx16.ams4>
 <vujj1c$35hcg$5@dont-email.me> <vujj9t$32om9$4@dont-email.me>
 <vujjh5$35hcg$8@dont-email.me> <vujjqb$32om9$6@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 23:58:44 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="45a93bd05faa8e2f7abf4427bcdde8c7";
	logging-data="3457288"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+naIkgFAmPnBkz+yJh0Ab9"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:o8AbmxJ1UJ4dpzSHRxSemdC6Zss=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250426-4, 4/26/2025), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <vujjqb$32om9$6@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US

On 4/26/2025 4:39 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 4/26/2025 5:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 4/26/2025 4:30 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 4/26/2025 5:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 4/26/2025 3:56 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> Refutation of the Halting Problem Assuming the Self-Referential 
>>>>> Paradox is
>>>>> a Category Error in All Computational Models and the Mathematical 
>>>>> Universe
>>>>> Hypothesis is True
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes and you are one of three people in the world that knows this.
>>>> You acquired expertise about this in about a year where most
>>>> people are indoctrinated into "received view" by mindless conformity.
>>>> Even Christ knew that people are sheep.
>>>>
>>>> The other thing about the Halting Problem is that
>>>> a simulating halt decider proves that the contradictory
>>>> part has always been unreachable code.
>>>>
>>>> When we apply the finite string transformation rules
>>>> specified by the Turing Machine language to the input
>>>> to the Linz proof 
>>>
>>> Which starts with the assumption that an H exists that computes the 
>>> following mapping:
>>>
>>>
>>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) 
>>> X described as <X> with input Y:
>>>
>>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the 
>>> following mapping:
>>>
>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed 
>>> directly
>>>
>>>
>>
>> THAT IS NOT ALLOWED because that cannot possibly be derived
>> by applying the finite string transformation rules specified
>> by the x86 language to the input to HHH(DD).
>>
> 
> In other words, a contradiction was reached.  


The error is reached when people stupidly assume
that HHH can violate the finite transformation rules
of the x86 language. THESE FOOLS (or liars?) HAVE BEEN
DOING THIS FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS.

This is the same as stupidly assuming that
int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
sum(3,2) should return the sum of 5 + 3.

Because several C programmers got this
immediately that only seems to leave
the comp.theory group is incompetent or dishonest.

> And because a 
> contradiction was reached, that proves the assumption that H an exists 
> that meets the above requirements is false.
> 


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