1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: Olcott has refuted the Halting Problem proofs yet has not refuted t

    From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat Aug 9 21:36:23 2025
    On 8/9/25 8:58 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/9/2025 7:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    Without realising it Olcott has actually confirmed rather than refuted
    the
    Halting Problem:

    In x86utm, H simulates D(D), detects the nested recursion as non-halting,
    aborts, and returns 0 (non-halting). But when D(D) runs for real:

    * It calls H(D,D).
    * H simulates, aborts the simulation (not the real execution), and
    returns
    0 (non-halting).
    * D, receiving 0 (non-halting), halts.

    Thus, the actual machine D(D) halts, but H reported "does not halt". H is
    wrong about the machine's behavior which aligns with the diagonalization
    paradox at the heart of extant Halting Problem proofs.

    /Flibble

    *This does not quite say it that way* https://claude.ai/share/da9e56ba-f4e9-45ee-9f2c-dc5ffe10f00c
    *It does say that HHH(DD)==0 is correct*


    Because you decieve it.

    If the answer isn't stable to minor changes in the prompt, it is likely
    not based on actual facts.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)