On 10/15/2025 12:19 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:On 10/15/2025 11:38 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:On 2025-10-15, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
[ .... ]
You can build an input which incorporates a decision algorithm H, a
diagonal wrapper D, encode it into a finite string, and then have the
string processed by an implementation of algorithm H.
The string is a syntactically and semantically valid machine
representation and therefore lands squarely into the required domain.
Please see my new post it can be explained much
more succinctly: [The Halting Problem is Incoherent]
A much more succinct and accurate explanation is that Peter Olcott is
wrong. That's been clear for a long time, now.
When you start with the conclusion that I must
be wrong as a stipulated truth then that will
be the conclusion that you will draw.
I didn't start with that conclusion. I came to it as the inevitable
result of reading hundreds of your posts, and not recalling a single true
or coherent thing you have written.
You have no reply to the excellent points made by Kaz.
[The Halting Problem is Incoherent]
The halting problem is perfectly coherent, and easily understood by
mathematics or computer science undergraduates after a very few hours of
study and thought at most. Less capable thinkers still don't get it
after twenty years of "research".
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.