Because halt deciders are deciders they are only accountable for
computing the mapping their actual input finite strings to an accept or
reject state on the basis of the actual behavior specified by these
actual inputs.

It is like you put a guard on the front door that is supposed to report
anyone coming in the front door (the actual inputs). Then someone comes
in the back door (non inputs) and the guard does not report this.

Since the guard is only supposed to report people coming in the front
door (actual inputs) it is incorrect to say that the guard made a
mistake by not reporting people that came in the back door (non inputs).

Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

The copy of Linz H at Ĥ.qx (embedded_H) determines the halt status of
its input on the basis of whether or not the pure simulation of any
finite number of steps of this input can possibly ever reach a final
state of this simulated input.

When embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input would
never reach its final state it aborts its input and transitions to Ĥ.qn.

When this causes Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ to halt that makes no difference
because the guard is only accountable for watching the front door.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/28/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> Because halt deciders are deciders they are only accountable for
> computing the mapping their actual input finite strings to an accept or
> reject state on the basis of the actual behavior specified by these
> actual inputs.

And a Halt Decider, BY DEFINITION, to be correct needs to decide based
on the actual behavior of computaiton the input represents, which it the
equivalent of simulating the input by an ACTUAL UTM (which H isn't one
if it stops simulating before the input reachs a final state).

>
> It is like you put a guard on the front door that is supposed to report
> anyone coming in the front door (the actual inputs). Then someone comes
> in the back door (non inputs) and the guard does not report this.

Bad Analogy, the definition of Halting defines what the 'Front Door' is.

>
> Since the guard is only supposed to report people coming in the front
> door (actual inputs) it is incorrect to say that the guard made a
> mistake by not reporting people that came in the back door (non inputs).

Right, and if UTM(<H^>,<H^>) halts, then that halting came through the
front door unless you are lying about working on the Halting Problem.

>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> The copy of Linz H at Ĥ.qx (embedded_H) determines the halt status of
> its input on the basis of whether or not the pure simulation of any
> finite number of steps of this input can possibly ever reach a final
> state of this simulated input.

And you have yet to prove that this is ACTUALLY possible. In fact, this
"ANSWER' is precisely the fallacy of assuming the conclusion. You are
basically saying that you can make a Halt Decider, because if you have a
Halt Decider you can decide on Halting.

>
> When embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input would
> never reach its final state it aborts its input and transitions to Ĥ.qn.
>

Again, you are assuming something you have not proved, and has been
proved to be impossible in this case. This is more of your Fairy Dust
Powered Unicorns.

FAIL.

> When this causes Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ to halt that makes no difference
> because the guard is only accountable for watching the front door.
>

Except that if H^ halts because the copy of H aborts it simulaton of a
copy of H^, then this halting IS the 'Front Door' that the guards were
responsible to detect.

Apparently they were asleep on the trying to make up a story to cover.

FAIL.

> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>
>
>

We have gone over this many times, it is clear that you are just lying
that you are working on the Halting Problem because you refuse to use
the actual definitions of Halting from the problem, but try to shade it
with weasle words to allow you to try to sneak in a false premise.

Either that or you are just too mentally deficient to be capable of
doing any real logic, and likely should be committed to keep yourself
from being a danger to yourself.

FAIL.

On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:34:25 -0500
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 1/28/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > Because halt deciders are deciders they are only accountable for
> > computing the mapping their actual input finite strings to an
> > accept or reject state on the basis of the actual behavior
> > specified by these actual inputs.
>
>
> And a Halt Decider, BY DEFINITION, to be correct needs to decide
> based on the actual behavior of computaiton the input represents,
> which it the equivalent of simulating the input by an ACTUAL UTM
> (which H isn't one if it stops simulating before the input reachs a
> final state).
>
> >
> > It is like you put a guard on the front door that is supposed to
> > report anyone coming in the front door (the actual inputs). Then
> > someone comes in the back door (non inputs) and the guard does not
> > report this.
>
> Bad Analogy, the definition of Halting defines what the 'Front Door'
> is.
>
> >
> > Since the guard is only supposed to report people coming in the
> > front door (actual inputs) it is incorrect to say that the guard
> > made a mistake by not reporting people that came in the back door
> > (non inputs).
>
> Right, and if UTM(<H^>,<H^>) halts, then that halting came through
> the front door unless you are lying about working on the Halting
> Problem.
>
> >
> > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> >
> > The copy of Linz H at Ĥ.qx (embedded_H) determines the halt status
> > of its input on the basis of whether or not the pure simulation of
> > any finite number of steps of this input can possibly ever reach a
> > final state of this simulated input.
>
> And you have yet to prove that this is ACTUALLY possible. In fact,
> this "ANSWER' is precisely the fallacy of assuming the conclusion.
> You are basically saying that you can make a Halt Decider, because if
> you have a Halt Decider you can decide on Halting.
>
> >
> > When embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input would
> > never reach its final state it aborts its input and transitions to
> > Ĥ.qn.
>
> Again, you are assuming something you have not proved, and has been
> proved to be impossible in this case. This is more of your Fairy Dust
> Powered Unicorns.
>
> FAIL.
>
> > When this causes Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ to halt that makes no difference
> > because the guard is only accountable for watching the front door.
> >
>
> Except that if H^ halts because the copy of H aborts it simulaton of
> a copy of H^, then this halting IS the 'Front Door' that the guards
> were responsible to detect.
>
> Apparently they were asleep on the trying to make up a story to cover.
>
> FAIL.
>
>
> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
> >
> >
> >
>
> We have gone over this many times, it is clear that you are just
> lying that you are working on the Halting Problem because you refuse
> to use the actual definitions of Halting from the problem, but try to
> shade it with weasle words to allow you to try to sneak in a false
> premise.
>
> Either that or you are just too mentally deficient to be capable of
> doing any real logic, and likely should be committed to keep yourself
> from being a danger to yourself.
>
> FAIL.

You both need to be sectioned IMO. Give it a fucking rest.

/Flibble

On 1/31/2022 11:05 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:34:25 -0500
> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1/28/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> Because halt deciders are deciders they are only accountable for
>>> computing the mapping their actual input finite strings to an
>>> accept or reject state on the basis of the actual behavior
>>> specified by these actual inputs.
>>
>>
>> And a Halt Decider, BY DEFINITION, to be correct needs to decide
>> based on the actual behavior of computaiton the input represents,
>> which it the equivalent of simulating the input by an ACTUAL UTM
>> (which H isn't one if it stops simulating before the input reachs a
>> final state).
>>
>>>
>>> It is like you put a guard on the front door that is supposed to
>>> report anyone coming in the front door (the actual inputs). Then
>>> someone comes in the back door (non inputs) and the guard does not
>>> report this.
>>
>> Bad Analogy, the definition of Halting defines what the 'Front Door'
>> is.
>>
>>>
>>> Since the guard is only supposed to report people coming in the
>>> front door (actual inputs) it is incorrect to say that the guard
>>> made a mistake by not reporting people that came in the back door
>>> (non inputs).
>>
>> Right, and if UTM(<H^>,<H^>) halts, then that halting came through
>> the front door unless you are lying about working on the Halting
>> Problem.
>>
>>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>
>>> The copy of Linz H at Ĥ.qx (embedded_H) determines the halt status
>>> of its input on the basis of whether or not the pure simulation of
>>> any finite number of steps of this input can possibly ever reach a
>>> final state of this simulated input.
>>
>> And you have yet to prove that this is ACTUALLY possible. In fact,
>> this "ANSWER' is precisely the fallacy of assuming the conclusion.
>> You are basically saying that you can make a Halt Decider, because if
>> you have a Halt Decider you can decide on Halting.
>>
>>>
>>> When embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input would
>>> never reach its final state it aborts its input and transitions to
>>> Ĥ.qn.
>>
>> Again, you are assuming something you have not proved, and has been
>> proved to be impossible in this case. This is more of your Fairy Dust
>> Powered Unicorns.
>>
>> FAIL.
>>
>>> When this causes Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ to halt that makes no difference
>>> because the guard is only accountable for watching the front door.
>>>
>>
>> Except that if H^ halts because the copy of H aborts it simulaton of
>> a copy of H^, then this halting IS the 'Front Door' that the guards
>> were responsible to detect.
>>
>> Apparently they were asleep on the trying to make up a story to cover.
>>
>> FAIL.
>>
>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> We have gone over this many times, it is clear that you are just
>> lying that you are working on the Halting Problem because you refuse
>> to use the actual definitions of Halting from the problem, but try to
>> shade it with weasle words to allow you to try to sneak in a false
>> premise.
>>
>> Either that or you are just too mentally deficient to be capable of
>> doing any real logic, and likely should be committed to keep yourself
>> from being a danger to yourself.
>>
>> FAIL.
>
> You both need to be sectioned IMO. Give it a fucking rest.
>
> /Flibble
>

This is my lifetime legacy and the FLIPI index projects that I will die
by next December.

https://www.mdcalc.com/follicular-lymphoma-international-prognostic-index-flipi

Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/31/2022 11:15 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/31/2022 11:05 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:34:25 -0500
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/28/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> Because halt deciders are deciders they are only accountable for
>>>> computing the mapping their actual input finite strings to an
>>>> accept or reject state on the basis of the actual behavior
>>>> specified by these actual inputs.
>>>
>>>
>>> And a Halt Decider, BY DEFINITION, to be correct needs to decide
>>> based on the actual behavior of computaiton the input represents,
>>> which it the equivalent of simulating the input by an ACTUAL UTM
>>> (which H isn't one if it stops simulating before the input reachs a
>>> final state).
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is like you put a guard on the front door that is supposed to
>>>> report anyone coming in the front door (the actual inputs). Then
>>>> someone comes in the back door (non inputs) and the guard does not
>>>> report this.
>>>
>>> Bad Analogy, the definition of Halting defines what the 'Front Door'
>>> is.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since the guard is only supposed to report people coming in the
>>>> front door (actual inputs) it is incorrect to say that the guard
>>>> made a mistake by not reporting people that came in the back door
>>>> (non inputs).
>>>
>>> Right, and if UTM(<H^>,<H^>) halts, then that halting came through
>>> the front door unless you are lying about working on the Halting
>>> Problem.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>
>>>> The copy of Linz H at Ĥ.qx (embedded_H) determines the halt status
>>>> of its input on the basis of whether or not the pure simulation of
>>>> any finite number of steps of this input can possibly ever reach a
>>>> final state of this simulated input.
>>>
>>> And you have yet to prove that this is ACTUALLY possible. In fact,
>>> this "ANSWER' is precisely the fallacy of assuming the conclusion.
>>> You are basically saying that you can make a Halt Decider, because if
>>> you have a Halt Decider you can decide on Halting.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input would
>>>> never reach its final state it aborts its input and transitions to
>>>> Ĥ.qn.
>>>
>>> Again, you are assuming something you have not proved, and has been
>>> proved to be impossible in this case. This is more of your Fairy Dust
>>> Powered Unicorns.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>>> When this causes Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ to halt that makes no difference
>>>> because the guard is only accountable for watching the front door.
>>>
>>> Except that if H^ halts because the copy of H aborts it simulaton of
>>> a copy of H^, then this halting IS the 'Front Door' that the guards
>>> were responsible to detect.
>>>
>>> Apparently they were asleep on the trying to make up a story to cover.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> We have gone over this many times, it is clear that you are just
>>> lying that you are working on the Halting Problem because you refuse
>>> to use the actual definitions of Halting from the problem, but try to
>>> shade it with weasle words to allow you to try to sneak in a false
>>> premise.
>>>
>>> Either that or you are just too mentally deficient to be capable of
>>> doing any real logic, and likely should be committed to keep yourself
>>> from being a danger to yourself.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>
>> You both need to be sectioned IMO. Give it a fucking rest.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> This is my lifetime legacy and the FLIPI index projects that I will die
> by next December.
>
> https://www.mdcalc.com/follicular-lymphoma-international-prognostic-index-flipi
>
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3

Once it is understood that I am correct this opens up a whole new world
for AI research:

(A) Computation will be understood to have truly unlimited potential.

(B) Davidson's truth conditional semantics will finally be anchored in a
correct formal definition of truth, refuting the Tarski Undefinability
theorem.

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott

Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see.
Arthur Schopenhauer

In article <5dWdnZoCHMGLhGX8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

> > You both need to be sectioned IMO. Give it a fucking rest.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> This is my lifetime legacy and the FLIPI index projects that I will die
> by next December.
>
> https://www.mdcalc.com/follicular-lymphoma-international-prognostic-index-flip
> i
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)

It's easy to write number theory conjectures that only halt if
the conjecture is true. If the halting problem is solvable, it
can prove a number of conjectures.

--
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted. @
'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' /|\
Discordia: not just a religion but also a parody. This post / \
I am an Andrea Doria sockpuppet. insults Islam. Mohammed

On 1/31/2022 2:36 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
> In article <5dWdnZoCHMGLhGX8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>
>>> You both need to be sectioned IMO. Give it a fucking rest.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>
>> This is my lifetime legacy and the FLIPI index projects that I will die
>> by next December.
>>
>> https://www.mdcalc.com/follicular-lymphoma-international-prognostic-index-flip
>> i
>>
>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>
> It's easy to write number theory conjectures that only halt if
> the conjecture is true. If the halting problem is solvable, it
> can prove a number of conjectures.
>

This is not at all the actual conventional meaning of undecidability
even though it is commonly used as a proxy. There is a huge difference
between a problem that lacks a currently known solution and a problem
that is provably unsolvable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture

--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 1/31/22 12:15 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/31/2022 11:05 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Fri, 28 Jan 2022 20:34:25 -0500
>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/28/22 8:14 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> Because halt deciders are deciders they are only accountable for
>>>> computing the mapping their actual input finite strings to an
>>>> accept or reject state on the basis of the actual behavior
>>>> specified by these actual inputs.
>>>
>>>
>>> And a Halt Decider, BY DEFINITION, to be correct needs to decide
>>> based on the actual behavior of computaiton the input represents,
>>> which it the equivalent of simulating the input by an ACTUAL UTM
>>> (which H isn't one if it stops simulating before the input reachs a
>>> final state).
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is like you put a guard on the front door that is supposed to
>>>> report anyone coming in the front door (the actual inputs). Then
>>>> someone comes in the back door (non inputs) and the guard does not
>>>> report this.
>>>
>>> Bad Analogy, the definition of Halting defines what the 'Front Door'
>>> is.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since the guard is only supposed to report people coming in the
>>>> front door (actual inputs) it is incorrect to say that the guard
>>>> made a mistake by not reporting people that came in the back door
>>>> (non inputs).
>>>
>>> Right, and if UTM(<H^>,<H^>) halts, then that halting came through
>>> the front door unless you are lying about working on the Halting
>>> Problem.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>
>>>> The copy of Linz H at Ĥ.qx (embedded_H) determines the halt status
>>>> of its input on the basis of whether or not the pure simulation of
>>>> any finite number of steps of this input can possibly ever reach a
>>>> final state of this simulated input.
>>>
>>> And you have yet to prove that this is ACTUALLY possible. In fact,
>>> this "ANSWER' is precisely the fallacy of assuming the conclusion.
>>> You are basically saying that you can make a Halt Decider, because if
>>> you have a Halt Decider you can decide on Halting.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> When embedded_H correctly determines that its simulated input would
>>>> never reach its final state it aborts its input and transitions to
>>>> Ĥ.qn.
>>>
>>> Again, you are assuming something you have not proved, and has been
>>> proved to be impossible in this case. This is more of your Fairy Dust
>>> Powered Unicorns.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>>> When this causes Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ to halt that makes no difference
>>>> because the guard is only accountable for watching the front door.
>>>
>>> Except that if H^ halts because the copy of H aborts it simulaton of
>>> a copy of H^, then this halting IS the 'Front Door' that the guards
>>> were responsible to detect.
>>>
>>> Apparently they were asleep on the trying to make up a story to cover.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>>
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> We have gone over this many times, it is clear that you are just
>>> lying that you are working on the Halting Problem because you refuse
>>> to use the actual definitions of Halting from the problem, but try to
>>> shade it with weasle words to allow you to try to sneak in a false
>>> premise.
>>>
>>> Either that or you are just too mentally deficient to be capable of
>>> doing any real logic, and likely should be committed to keep yourself
>>> from being a danger to yourself.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>
>> You both need to be sectioned IMO. Give it a fucking rest.
>>
>> /Flibble
>>
>
> This is my lifetime legacy and the FLIPI index projects that I will die
> by next December.

And if that is what you are depending on, you have FAILED.

Maybe you need to smarten up and see if there is something you can
actually do that makes a difference.

On you current path, your legacy is that of a bumbling moron that
refused to believe the Truth because it disagreed with something they
thought should be right.

>
> https://www.mdcalc.com/follicular-lymphoma-international-prognostic-index-flipi
>
>
> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358009319_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation_V3
>
>
>
>

On 1/31/22 3:43 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 1/31/2022 2:36 PM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>> In article <5dWdnZoCHMGLhGX8nZ2dnUU7-cvNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>   olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> You both need to be sectioned IMO. Give it a fucking rest.
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is my lifetime legacy and the FLIPI index projects that I will die
>>> by next December.
>>>
>>> https://www.mdcalc.com/follicular-lymphoma-international-prognostic-index-flip
>>>
>>> i
>>>
>>> Halting problem undecidability and infinitely nested simulation (V3)
>>
>> It's easy to write number theory conjectures that only halt if
>> the conjecture is true. If the halting problem is solvable, it
>> can prove a number of conjectures.
>>
>
> This is not at all the actual conventional meaning of undecidability
> even though it is commonly used as a proxy. There is a huge difference
> between a problem that lacks a currently known solution and a problem
> that is provably unsolvable.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach%27s_conjecture
>
>

But if the Halting Problem is proved to be solvable, then many other
conjectures become provable to be provable or disprovable.

I don't think you understand the impact of what you seem to want to try
to enable.

Admittedly, you admit your aren't trying to prove that Halting is
decidable, that that just means that this 'proof' of yours becomes
basically worthless.

Even if you COULD prove that this particular proof isn't valid, there
are still other unrelated proofs that are still valid, which means that
Halting is still undecidable, and thus all the undecidability proofs you
don't like are still valid.

This means that you seem to be aiming at trying to proof something that
is worthless.