Re: I have just proven the error of all of the halting problem proofs --- Mackenzie

On 7/26/2025 2:52 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sat, 26 Jul 2025 14:26:27 -0500, olcott wrote:
 

On 7/26/2025 1:30 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

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

The error of all of the halting problem proofs is that they require a
Turing machine halt decider to report on the behavior of a directly
executed Turing machine.

>

It is common knowledge that no Turing machine decider can take another
directly executing Turing machine as an input, thus the above
requirement is not precisely correct.

>

When we correct the error of this incorrect requirement it becomes a
Turing machine decider indirectly reports on the behavior of a
directly executing Turing machine through the proxy of a finite string
description of this machine.

>

Now I have proven and corrected the error of all of the halting
problem proofs.

>
No you haven't, the subject matter is too far beyond your intellectual
capacity.
>
>

It only seems to you that I lack understanding because you are so sure
that I must be wrong that you make sure to totally ignore the subtle
nuances of meaning that proves I am correct.
>
No Turing machine based (at least partial) halt decider can possibly
*directly* report on the behavior of any directly executing Turing
machine.  The best that any of them can possibly do is indirectly report
on this behavior through the proxy of a finite string machine
description.

 Partial decidability is not a hard problem.
 /Flibble

My point is that all of the halting problem proofs
are wrong when they require a Turing machine decider
H to report on the behavior of machine M on input i
because machine M is not in the domain of any Turing
machine decider. Only finite strings such as ⟨M⟩ the
Turing machine description of machine M are its
domain.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer