I am asking this question again.  I am aware of, and have read the other similar alternative proof TM questions, but unfortunately, they do help me.I am looking for a TM Halting Problem proof that does not have the following properties:Uses diagonalization.Uses recursion.Uses self reference.Relies on running the Turing Machine.  Specifically, there is a distinction between analyzing a Turing Machine to determine if it has a certain property and running / simulating a Turing Machine to see if it exhibits a certain property.  It should go without saying that a HALTing function that determines whether or not a given Turing Machine halts by simulating it and waiting until it halts / returns is not the only way to determine whether or not a Turing Machine halts.Uses proof by contradiction, although this is extremely context dependent.  My main concern is with a proof by contradiction that is self referential such that it forms a key part of the proof that can not be separated from the proof without causing the result to collapse.  I understand you may not understand or agree with my reasoning, but for my purposes a proof that did not use this technique would greatly simplify things.Ideally, the proof would have the following properties:Use technique such as exhaustively enumerative, pigeon hole, double count, etc.Uses a different branch of mathematics to achieve the same result, i.e. graph theory, combinatorics, etc.Still applies when reduced to the Boolean domain (i.e., a turing machine built using just 2 input, 1 output NAND gates (i.e., a computer) exhibits the same problem).  Specifically, the result can not contradict the fact that Boolean algebras have been proven to be decidable, and every $n$-bit Boolean $L$ can be shown to be decided by a bounded by a number of {AND, OR, NOT} gates (via Shannons The synthesis of two-terminal switching circuits).I have spent quite a bit of time looking for alternate formulations of the Halting Problem that are not just simple permutations of the original proof given by Turing.Question: Can you point me to a vetted proof of the Halting Problem that shares as absolutely as little in common with the one given by Turing?Please, instead of arguing with me as to whether or not my reasons are valid, or that I don't get it and should just accept the proof given by Turing, it would be a great help to me and possibly someone else if you could simply help me locate an alternate proof.  Yes, I am looking for proofs with certain properties, properties that inconveniently cull a number of candidates.  Despite this, they are properties that I unfortunately need.
Alternative Turing Machine Proofs
computability;turing machines;proofs;halting problem