Why is the common explanation to the halting problem an oversimplification? So watching many youtube channels, the explanation to the impossibility of solving the halting problen involves assuming you can, doing the opposite, and feeding it back into itself to create a paradox.
What I don't get is why this is an (over)simplification. The logic seems to check out. What is the flaw in this reasoning?
It's basically correct, but it can be viewed as an oversimplification because that one sentence doesn't explain the details of how to feed it back into itself or why &quot;feeding it back into itself&quot; creates a paradox -- that requires additional explanation or justification.