Re: HP counter-example INPUT cannot possibly exist

On 2025-06-18 16:05:33 +0000, olcott said:
 

On 6/18/2025 10:57 AM, joes wrote:

Am Wed, 18 Jun 2025 09:39:02 -0500 schrieb olcott:

On 6/16/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-15 14:44:47 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/15/2025 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-06-13 15:33:45 +0000, olcott said:

On 6/13/2025 5:37 AM, Mikko wrote:

>

As you respond to my question without answering it it is obvious
that you don't see any proofs in your article.

>
It is a fact that there is no actual input D to any termination
analyzer H that does the opposite of whatever value that H derives.
The key element that all conventional HP proofs depend on cannot
possibly exist.

>
Nonsense is not a fact.

>
After studying these things for 22 years I found that every
conventional proof of the halting problem never provides an actual
input that would do the opposite of whatever value that its partial
halt decider (PHD) returns.

>
The core part of those proofs is a constructive specification of that
test case.
>

Yet no one ever noticed that the counter-example input cannot even be
constructed thus the proof itself never actually existed.

In what sense? The code for DDD is clearly in your repository.

>
There has never been any HP proof that has
ever defined *AN ACTUAL INPUT* to a termination
analyzer that can possibly do the opposite of
whatever value that this termination analyzer
determines.

 Of course a proof of the halting problem does not define anything
for a termination alayzer. Termination anlyzers are not a relevant
for any proof (or other discussion) about the halting problem.