Best way to get my work on the halting problem critiqued?
There is one and only one appropriate way to get feedback on scientific work:
- Write it up in a way that conforms to the community standards.
- Submit it to a conference or journal.
Your question doesn't seem to match 1; you seem to be learning about computability, running into some of the basic misunderstandings many learners stub their toes on. (Which is a good thing.)
- If you assumed you had solved the Halting problem, you're in disagreement with accepted truths in the relevant models. It will take more words to establish the merit of your work: if the logic checks out, you must be using a non-standard model; if not, there's probably a simple (if maybe subtle) flaw.
- If you assume your attempt is flawed, there's of course no point in submitting to a journal. Asking peers with a firm grasp on computability theory would be a good way, or a teacher if you have one. I see you asked on our main site; that's also a good idea, but your execution can be improved (note the comments). It still helps to use standard terminology of the filed; for instance, do not use C code and its peculiarities, but one of the mathematical machine models. (Most likely you'll find the problem while making this translation, which is of course one of the major points of having these models.)