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

On 7/21/2025 3:09 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 20/07/2025 17:13, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

Do you really think that for such a simple problem, known and
understood by millions over nearly a century, any flaw would
not have already been found long ago?

 You're right, of course, but the above argument is not as robust
as we might hope.
 "The number of human chromosomes was published by Painter in
1923. By inspection through a microscope, he counted 24 pairs of
chromosomes, giving 48 in total. His error was copied by others,
and it was not until 1956 that the true number (46) was
determined by Indonesian-born cytogeneticist Joe Hin Tjio."
 And oscillating reactions were known to be impossible for quite a
while even after crank Belousov came up with one.
 And of course there's another problem:
 

Do you really think that for such a simple problem, known and
understood by millions over nearly a century, any flaw would
not have already been found long ago?

 Yes. That's /precisely/ what he really thinks. And he always will, no matter what we tell him.
 

Because my reasoning is sound and every rebuttal
either denied verified facts or changed the words
that I said and rebutted these changed words. No
one can find any example of any error in the gist
of anything that I have been saying.
I did have a few typos here and there.
Joes tries to keep getting away with saying that
HHH cannot possibly simulate itself simulating DDD.
Richard almost always uses the strawman error.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer