Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string transformations to inputs VERIFIED FACT
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2025 19:01:54 -0700
Organization: None to speak of
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <87ecx9ay25.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
References: <vu6lnf$39fls$2@dont-email.me> <vuoath$3ljma$1@dont-email.me>
	<vuohgi$3td7u$1@dont-email.me> <vuonh6$2g74$2@dont-email.me>
	<vupeor$qf60$1@dont-email.me> <vupu0r$18vrc$1@dont-email.me>
	<vuqj5u$1rljg$1@dont-email.me> <vuql8e$1svmd$1@dont-email.me>
	<vur7vd$2dvvs$1@dont-email.me> <vur9t9$2gjif$1@dont-email.me>
	<vurasr$2hkih$1@dont-email.me> <vurbgd$2gjif$2@dont-email.me>
	<vurgt8$2n355$1@dont-email.me> <vuric8$2gjif$3@dont-email.me>
	<vutepm$gmbi$4@dont-email.me> <vutgjt$hkal$3@dont-email.me>
	<vutmka$nvbg$1@dont-email.me>
	<87ikmlzb3j.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vuu6je$151a8$1@dont-email.me>
	<87ecx9z4or.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
	<vuubmn$1aldv$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Date: Thu, 01 May 2025 04:02:04 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="062dbae11dbc07a990917912d9af4c2d";
	logging-data="1653301"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/a+suANElZV7f3whsHxi6u"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:5y6mz+Iura9BGquAgmDKKnhyLMk=
	sha1:jOysK/31yDAs4gi9cftsH12xK6o=

olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
> On 4/30/2025 5:04 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 4/30/2025 2:46 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Because you don't pay any attention at all
>>>>> you did not bother to notice that I have never been
>>>>> attacking the Halting Problem only the conventional
>>>>> Halting Problem proof.
>>>> [...]
>>>> That's some interesting news, at least to me.
>>>> I was under the impression that you had explicitly claimed to have
>>>> solved the Halting Problem.  I don't read most of what you write,
>>>> and I don't remember all of what I've read, so my impression may
>>>> have been mistaken.
>>>> Now you're saying that you're only attacking the conventional proof.
>>>
>>> That is ALL that I have been saying for several years.
>>> Anyone can figure that out simply on the basis of
>>> actually paying attention to my proof.
>>>
>>> HHH(DD) does correctly report that the halting problem
>>> proof's impossible input DOES NOT HALT SO THE PROOF
>>> IS WRONG.
>> So your only claim is that the commonly known Halting Problem proof
>> is flawed.  (Others who have paid more attention might choose to
>> comment on that.)
>> Do you have anything to say about whether the Halting Problem
>> is solvable?  (You snipped this question in your previous response.)
>> 
>
> The proof that the Halting Problem is not solvable
> has been proven to be incorrect.
>
> It turns out the the entire category of undecidable
> decision problem instances is vacuous. The whole
> notion of undecidability is merely a confused view.
>
> It is easy to eliminate undecidability in formal
> systems simply by only allowing semantic logical
> entailment from a set of basic facts that have been
> stipulated to be true.

That's nice.

Do you have anything to say about whether the Halting Problem
is solvable?  Refuting one proof doesn't address that question.

There's some discussion of other proofs of the undecidability of
the Halting Problem here:

    https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/q/2853/7906

I don't have the time or mathematical background necessary to
understand it, but others here might.

I expect you'll continue to evade the question.  If so, I'll go
back to ignoring you.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */