Liste des Groupes | Revenir à s logic |
On 7/22/25 11:49 AM, olcott wrote:*Its been three years now and you can't remember*On 7/22/2025 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:No, YOU changed the subject of the problem from the OBJECTIVE behavior of the execution of DDD, to the SUBJECTIVE criteria of what HHH sees.On 7/21/25 11:50 PM, olcott wrote:>On 7/21/2025 9:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:>On 7/21/25 9:45 AM, olcott wrote:>On 7/21/2025 4:06 AM, Mikko wrote:>On 2025-07-20 11:48:37 +0000, Mr Flibble said:>
>On Sun, 20 Jul 2025 07:13:43 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:>
>On 7/20/25 12:58 AM, olcott wrote:>Title: A Structural Analysis of the Standard Halting Problem ProofYour problem is you don't understand the meaning of the words you are
>
Author: PL Olcott
>
Abstract:
This paper presents a formal critique of the standard proof of the
undecidability of the Halting Problem. While we do not dispute the
conclusion that the Halting Problem is undecidable, we argue that the
conventional proof fails to establish this conclusion due to a
fundamental misapplication of Turing machine semantics. Specifically,
we show that the contradiction used in the proof arises from conflating
the behavior of encoded simulations with direct execution, and from
making assumptions about a decider's domain that do not hold under a
rigorous model of computation.
>
using.
This is an ad hominem attack, not argumentation.
It is also honest and truthful, which is not as common as it should.
>
It is also honest and truthful that people
that deny verified facts are either liars
or lack sufficient technical competence.
>
Right, so YOU are the liar.
>
It is a verified fact that the PROGRAM DDD halts since your HHH(DDD) returns 0.
>
When I say that DDD simulated by HHH does not
halt you dishonestly change the subject.
>
Because you are just showing you don't know English.
>
Not at all. You dishonestly change the subject to
something besides DDD simulated by HHH.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.