Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Halting Problem: How my refutation differs to Peter Olcott's
Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 12:42:37 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <vvpred$4c9b$1@dont-email.me>
References: <BPOTP.66191$v0S.4884@fx14.ams4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 11:42:38 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8a4d2e962e80928203138f924459649c";
	logging-data="143659"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1++4R+jbV+6xr5MVcKMINLX"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:6p/fURRKtDQfCvOW0gRg5yP6ptI=
Bytes: 1630

On 2025-05-10 20:38:57 +0000, Mr Flibble said:

> How my refutation differs to Peter's:
> 
> * Peter refutes the halting problem based on pathological input
> manifesting in a simulating halt decider as infinite recursion, this being
> treated as non-halting.
> * Flibble refutes the halting problem based on patholgical input
> manifesting as decider/input self-referencial conflation, resulting in the
> contradiction at the heart of the halting problem being a category (type)
> error, i.e. ill-formed.
> 
> These two refutations are related but not exactly the same.

The similarities are more important that differences, in particular
on similarity: neither one refutes anything.

-- 
Mikko