Re: Refutation of Turing’s 1936 Halting Problem Proof Based on Self-Referential Conflation as a Category (Type) Error

On 4/24/25 11:11 AM, olcott wrote:

On 4/23/2025 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2025-04-21 23:52:15 +0000, olcott said:
>

Computer Science Professor Eric Hehner PhD
and I all seem to agree that the same view
that Flibble has is the correct view.

>
Others can see that their justification is defective and contradicted
by a good proof.
>
Some people claim that the unsolvability of the halting problem is
unproven but nobody has solved the problem.
>

 For the last 22 years I have only been refuting the
conventional Halting Problem proof. Actually solving
the Halting Problem requires making a computer program
that is literally all knowing about program termination.

And you have failed, because you have chosen to not learn the language of the field and thus make stupid errors, that you refuse to fix, because you are just showing yourself too stupid.

 When one understands that halt deciders are only allowed
apply finite string transformations to input finite
strings and
 these transformations are defined by the language then it
becomes unequivocally clear (if one bothers to pay complete
attention and knows the x86 language) that the input to
HHH(DD) is correctly rejected as non halting.
 The behavior of the direct execution of DD cannot possibly
be derived by applying the finite string transformation
rules specified by the x86 language to the input to HHH(DD).
 

And that is your error, because you don't understand what you are talking about,
The "behavior" is not the input, it is the property the output is supposed to descirbe.
The "input" is the representation of the program, which clearly CAN be provided. It is the job of the decider (and its programmer) to figure out the finite algorithm of transformation that gets from the input to the output.
There is no requirement that the answer be given in the input, just that is specifes enough that the behavior is fully specifed to the decider.
Since that same input could be given to a UTM (which will still use the decder, and not the UTM), and it could totally recreate the behavior of the machine, the input is sufficent to meet the requirements of the problem.
The fact that it is impossible for this decider to give the correct answer for this input just shows that it isn't a correct halt decider.
The fact we can show that we can do this for ANY halt decider, shows that no Halt Deciders that are always correct can exist.
It also shows that you are just too stupid to understand this simple logic as it hasn't sunk into your head after decades of work on it, because you are just stuck believing your own lies cause by your ignorance.