Replace X with .length and read your statement again.
"If halt can be implemented by using .length that means you can reduce .length to halt."
Please just answer whether you believe that statement is true or false (or undecidable).
Reductions in complexity theory work like this. An explicit algorithm invokes a black box and this shows that either the black box does not exist or you can solve the original problem. Typically you care about the complexity of the reduction to establish that the problem is inside a given complexity class (e.g. NP complete).
The statement is obviously false by the way, as you can see in the article where the author does exactly that. You rephrasing the statement to make it true, is just ignoring the point.
I would encourage you to engage in some studying of reading comprehension. It is an important skill in mathematics and related disciplines.
If <absurd condition> then <some even more absurd thing> is a perfectly sound logic statement.
I explained already how reduction proofs work. Why don't you read on that instead of posting non sense?
None of what you are saying is even remotely a response to my criticism. You can tell me that I failed basic logic all you want, but your reading comprehension sucks so much that you still have not been able to figure out what I am even talking about.
I think you still haven't understood that I never said his intended reasoning was wrong. But that his statement as written is plainly false. There is no argument against the logic by me, so the fact that you keep going on and on about "logic" just shows that you haven't even understood yet that nobody disagrees with the logic. I know how a proof by contradiction works, you do not seem to want to understand that "computes" and "implements" are different words. And that by repeatedly arguing that the authors reasoning is valid if you change the statement to make it correct you are proving my point again and again.
Compute and implements are different words, nobody is arguing that. To me and everyone literate in math/cs, the role of "implementing" here is in the proof by reduction, which in the case of computability is used to establish by contradiction that some other problem is not computable by reducing a known incompatible problem to it.
Just like when you show an algorithmic implementation that maps any SAT instance to another problem using a polynomial time algorithm, then it follows that this other problem is NP-complete.
Read the first post. You should have done that before responding I think.
This is true. The condition is false (halt cannot be implemented by using length), thus the implication is true, regardless of the implicant.