YOU MAY HAVE A BUG IN YOUR NEWSREADER (my replies are not showing up on Thunderbird)
Refuting the Halting Problem proofs (Via a refutation of the Peter Linz proof)
On Thursday, February 21, 2019 at 12:46:54 AM UTC+3, peteolcott wrote:
> I created the algorithm to accomplish this December 13, 2018 at about 7:00 PM. This was after 14 years of (off and on) research, about 7,000 labor hours.
> I showed a key gap in the understanding of this proof by creating a fully executable Turing machine Linz H that actually decides halting for its input pair the Linz (Ĥ, Ĥ).
> These are defined on pages 318-319 on this link: http://liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf
> My refutation can be generalized to show exactly how halting would be decidable for every halting problem proof counter-example, thus simultaneously refuting all of the halting problem proofs.
> Any first year comp sci student will be able to see directly for themselves exactly how the Linz proof is correctly refuted.
> I will provide an execution trace showing exactly how the Linz H would correctly deciding halting for its input pair the Linz (Ĥ, Ĥ).
> Turing machines H and Ĥ are fully encoded in a language of Turing machine descriptions.
> The compiler to translate these into virtual machine language is almost done. The parser is totally complete and the code generator correctly generates most of the code.
> I just refactored all of the my code from 2009 and upgraded Flex and Bison to current versions.
> The interpreter to execute this virtual machine language is fully designed and not yet coded. Compared to the compiler the interpreter is trivial to implement.
> Copyright 2019 Pete Olcott
> All rights reserved
Now, it must be the immediate turn of those experts, professional mathematicians in this field, to verify it fast, and confirm it openly as true and report it immediately to highest sources, where then the specialized Journals and the concerned research
centres at Universities to contact you for permitting them to publish it once found completely true in basic principles, where the rest of that easy routine works as (themes, introductions, references, colouring and drawings) can be added by those
specialists Journals and alike,
And in case they ignore your claims or proofs deliberately or for what so ever incomprehensible reason (despite being assumed true), then they are certainly guilty and must be shamed forever,
However, going to prober courts (if existing) would be the only solution for so many unsettled problems in mathematics mainly due to the complete dishonesty among the specialist's professional mathematicians in their own fields, For sure