Re: Turing Machine computable functions apply finite string transformations to inputs VERIFIED FACT

On 4/30/25 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/30/2025 9:01 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

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.
>

 After people acknowledge that I have correctly refuting
the conventional proof will I tolerate change of subject.
Ben wasted 15 years of my life with his change of subject
form of rebuttal.

Why would they do that, why your "proofs" are just full of obvious errors, at least obvious to anyone that understands what they are talking about.

  Once one proof is refuted thenn (then and only then) we
move onto the next proof.

So, you still have that first one to try to disprove.
Your problem is you just don't even understand the nature of the logic systems they are built in.

 

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.
>