Re: Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem Proof

Hello, Ben.

Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote:

Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:

[ .... ]

In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:

On 7/21/2025 10:52 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

...

More seriously, you told Ben Bacarisse on this newsgroup that you had
fully worked out turing machines which broke a proof of the Halting
Theorem.  It transpired you were lying.

Just for the record, here is what PO said late 2018 early 2019:

On 12/14/2018 5:27 PM, peteolcott wrote that he had

  "encoded all of the exact TMD [Turing Machine Description]
  instructions of the Linz Turing machine H that correctly decides
  halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)."

Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 11:03:21 -0600

  "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz
  specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing
  Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong."

Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2018 01:28:22 -0600

  "I now have an actual H that decides actual halting for an actual (Ĥ,
  Ĥ) input pair.  I have to write the UTM to execute this code, that
  should not take very long.  The key thing is the H and Ĥ are 100%
  fully encoded as actual Turing machines."

Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2018 09:02:50 -0600

  "I am waiting to encode the UTM in C++ so that I can actually execute
  H on the input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ). This should take a week or two [...] it
  is exactly and precisely the Peter Linz H and Ĥ, with H actually
  deciding input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)"

Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 16:24:36 -0600

  "I provide the exact ⊢* wildcard states after the Linz H.q0 and after
  Ĥ.qx (Linz incorrectly uses q0 twice) showing exactly how the actual
  Linz H would correctly decide the actual Linz (Ĥ, Ĥ)."

Thanks for clarifying that.

I think I can understand a bit what it must feel like to be on the
receiving end of all this.  Firstly you know through training that what
you're being told is definitely false, but on the other hand you don't
like to believe that somebody is lying; somehow you give them the
(temporary) benefit of the doubt.  Then comes the depressing restoration
of truth and reality.

When the topic came up again for
discussion, you failed to deny writing the original lie.

That is the closest thing to a lie that I ever said.
When I said this I was actually meaning that I had
fully operational C code that is equivalent to a
Turing Machine.

I think it was a full blown lie intended to deceive.  Did you ever
apologise to Ben for leading him up the garden path like that?

No, never.  In fact he kept insulting me until it became so egregious
that I decided to having nothing more to do with him.

Somehow, that doesn't surprise me.  I only post a little on this group
now (I never really posted much more) for similar reasons.  I care about
the truth, including mathematical truth; although I've never specialised
in computation theory or mathematical logic, I care when these are
falsified by ignorant posters.

What really got my goat this time around was PO stridently and
hypocritically accusing others of being liars, given his own record.

What he did do was take months to slowly walk back the claim he made in
December 2018.  H and Ĥ became "virtual machines" and then started to be
"sufficiently equivalent" to Linz's H and Ĥ rather the "exactly and
precisely the Peter Linz H and Ĥ".  By Sep 2020 he didn't even have it
anymore:

  "I will soon have a partial halt decider sufficiently equivalent to
  the Linz H correctly deciding halting on the Linz Ĥ"

It took nearly two years to walk back the clear and explicit claim to
this vague and ill-defined claim of not having something!

Yes.  I've watched the latter part of this process.

You have not and never have had "fully operational C code" that breaks a
proof of the Halting Theorem.  To say you had this, when you clearly
didn't, was a lie.

He also tried to pretend that the C code (which, as you say, he didn't
have) is what he always meant when he wrote the words I quoted above.  I
defy anyone to read those words with PO's later claim that he meant C
code all along and not conclude that he was just lying again to try to
save some little face.

What amazes me is he somehow thinks that theorems don't apply to him.
Of course, he doesn't understand what a theorem is, somehow construing
it as somebody's opinion.  If it's just opinion, then his contrasting
opinion must be "just as good".  Or something like that.

C code does not have "TMD instructions" that can be encoded.  TMs (as in
Linz) do.  When executed, C code has no "exact ⊢* wildcard states after
the Linz H.q0" for PO to show.  A TM would.  C code does not need a UTM
to execute it (a TM does) and if he really meant that he had C code all
along, does anyone think he could write a UTM for C in "a week or two"?

It is so patently obvious that he just had a manic episode in Dec 2018
that caused he to post all those exuberant claims, and so patently
obvious that he simply can't admit being wrong about anything that I
ended up feeling rather sorry for him -- until the insults started up
again.

That's another reason I don't post much, here.  I really don't feel like
being insulted by somebody of PO's intellectual stature.

Have a good Sunday!

--
Ben.

--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).