Re: Refutation of the Halting Problem Assuming the Self-Referential Paradox is a Category Error --- Linz Proof

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