Nope, you don't understand what you are talking about. Apparently
because you are too ignorant.
The Halting Problem, like all decision problems, is asking *IF* a
program can be created to compute a defined decision function.
If a program can be written, the problem is computable/desidable
If a program can not be written, the problem is non-computable/undesidable.
The problem is only "invalid" only if the function itself is ill-defined.
The Halting Problem is asking if we can create a program to compute the
Halting Function, which is the function that is true for all inputs that
represent a Halting compuation, and false that represent a non-halting
computation, and all computations WILL either halt or not. It is a valid
So, until you can provide some magic program that neither halts nor
never halts, your statement that the Halting Problem is invalid is just
incorrect, and a lie.
Note, you are misusing the term "Satisfiable" as it is used in logic.
Satisfiable means that there is a set of values of the input variables
to a formula that make the formula have a "true" value.
The Halting Problem doesn't HAVE a formula to try to satisfy.
It asks about the ability to create a program that can acheive a
The answer to the question is NO, that doesn't make the problem invalid.
You are just proving to the world how ignorant you are of the field tha
that you make grand claims about, showing how stupid you actually are.
You failure to even try to address any of the errors pointed out in your
arguements, even to the point of not answering the messages makeing
those points, just shows how broken your argument is.
You seem to have just surrendered to the fact that your arguement is
wrong, but are trying the principle of the "Big Lie", that by repeatig
it often enough, some people might just believe it.
This is the same thing that you claim to be fighting agaisnt, so you are
just proving yourself to be a Hypocrite.