Path: nntp.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: olcott Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 09:32:45 -0500 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 118 Message-ID: <105tg6d$1fr8n$7@dont-email.me> References: <105ht1n$36s20$1@dont-email.me> <105kvub$2q17h$1@dont-email.me> <105lg9k$3v8t8$6@dont-email.me> <105npl8$37i2t$1@dont-email.me> <105o4uu$g4mg$4@dont-email.me> <105q7nc$8slg$5@dont-email.me> <105qv4j$10rne$1@dont-email.me> <105t0cq$l7mf$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2025 16:32:46 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="fd5759eac3b2dc0860524bda45510ca5"; logging-data="1568023"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+sXoVhYuvT76ueBEfYHPCX" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:0viRP8nRubDJPwW6OEIO7t93bHE= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <105t0cq$l7mf$2@dont-email.me> X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250724-2, 7/24/2025), Outbound message On 7/24/2025 5:03 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 23.jul.2025 om 17:29 schreef olcott: >> On 7/23/2025 3:49 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 22.jul.2025 om 15:50 schreef olcott: >>>> On 7/22/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2025-07-21 13:45:24 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/21/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is also honest and truthful that people >>>>>> that deny verified facts are either liars >>>>>> or lack sufficient technical competence. >>>>> >>>>> Where I live it is a crime to call anyone a liar or lacinkg sufficient >>>>> technical compoetence unless a judge accepts your proof of your >>>>> claims. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I have proven that my claims are self-evidently >>>> true on the basis of the meaning of their words >>>> and the meaning of the code samples that I have >>>> provided. >>> >>> As usual incorrect claims without evidence. >>> >>>> >>>> void DDD() >>>> { >>>>    HHH(DDD); >>>>    return; >>>> } >>>> >>>> When anyone says that DDD correctly simulated by >>>> HHH reaches its own "return" statement final halt >>>> state if we just wait long enough this is either >>>> a lie or a lack of sufficient technical competence. >>> >>> Nobody said such a thing. Suggesting that somebody did, without any >>> evidence, may be considered as a lie. >>> We all know that HHH fails to reach the final halt state, >> >> Counter-factual. > > As usual claims without relevant evidence. > >> The directly executed HHH does reach its final halt state. >> DDD correctly simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its >> final halt state no matter what HHH does because it remains >> stuck in recursive simulation. > > Indeed, but irrelevant. The simulating HHH does not do a correct > simulation, it aborts prematurely. *Correctly emulated is defined as* Emulated according to the rules of the x86 language. This includes DDD emulated by HHH and HHH emulating itself emulating DDD one or more times. void DDD() { HHH(DDD); return; } _DDD() [00002192] 55 push ebp [00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192 // push DDD [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH [0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04 [000021a2] 5d pop ebp [000021a3] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3] Aborting prematurely literally means that after N instructions of DDD are correctly emulated by HHH that this emulated DDD would reach its own emulated "ret" instruction final halt state. What value of N are you proposing? -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer