Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 12:06:19 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 30 Message-ID: <105kvub$2q17h$1@dont-email.me> References: <105ht1n$36s20$1@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2025 09:06:19 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="075f97bd3ead790450942e7368e081b0"; logging-data="2950385"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19itXVAqwFVJAN24H63y2ZE" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:g0Htnni96VFiMGLg2qQhzLM/KBY= On 2025-07-20 11:48:37 +0000, Mr Flibble said: > On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 07:13:43 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: > >> On 7/20/25 12:58 AM, olcott wrote: >>> Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof >>> >>> Author: PL Olcott >>> >>> Abstract: >>> This paper presents a formal critique of the standard proof of the >>> undecidability of the Halting Problem. While we do not dispute the >>> conclusion that the Halting Problem is undecidable, we argue that the >>> conventional proof fails to establish this conclusion due to a >>> fundamental misapplication of Turing machine semantics. Specifically, >>> we show that the contradiction used in the proof arises from conflating >>> the behavior of encoded simulations with direct execution, and from >>> making assumptions about a decider's domain that do not hold under a >>> rigorous model of computation. >>> >> Your problem is you don't understand the meaning of the words you are >> using. > > This is an ad hominem attack, not argumentation. It is also honest and truthful, which is not as common as it should. -- Mikko