Re: Solution to the halting Problem?

From: Karl Heinz Buchegger (kbuchegg_at_gascad.at)
Date: 07/23/04 

Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 14:58:31 +0200

Peter Olcott wrote:
>
> > Peter does not understand that algorithms produce a result. In which form
> > this result is presented is completely unimportant and such not part of
> > the algorithm.
>
> Since the result is returned to the program being analyzed, and the result
> changes the behavior of the program being analyzed, therefore the result
> of the analysis is different. If the result is NOT returned to the program
> being analyzed, then the behavior of the program is NOT changed, and
> the result of the analysis is conclusive. It really very simple.

Here is you logical flaw.
As long as you somehow present the result (and you have to do that, otherwise
the whole thing is useless) there are *always* ways to 'return' the result
to the program. Even if that means that the program asks the user: 'What
was the result?' and the user has to enter what WillHalt() printed on the
screen. So even if you try to eliminate all ways to return that information
to the program (as you do by dropping the return value, not allowing the
program to get at that information from the screen buffer memory and whatever
you thouhgt up on your web site) there is only one way to completely close
the information-return-path: not outputting that information at all. But then
your WillHalt() tester is useless.
So there are 2 choices:
  1) either WillHalt() outputs some information
  2) or it does not. In this case it is useless because it is the nature of
     a tester to come up with some result. No result -> no tester

>From this it follows that we have to accept 1)
Now if we are with choice 1) then it doesn't matter what you do, the calling
function can get at that information which makes your method just a complicated
case of the original proof. And the conclusion from the original method was:
WillHalt() cannot exist.

                                                       qed

>
> > And having an algorithm which produces absolutely no result
> > (or does not present its result) is of no particular use. However there
>
> You didn't bother to read what I said all the way through either did you?
> If you would have read what I said ALL THE WAY THROUGH, you
> would see that your last statemnt is false.

Well.
If I am presented with a proof that something cannot exist and minds
brigther then you or I or the complete intelligence of that group confirmed
that proof to be correct, I don't question it. 

-- 
Karl Heinz Buchegger
kbuchegg@gascad.at

Relevant Pages

  • Re: That fails SETI also (was: Definition Challenge)
    ... "useless" no matter what I say or present. ... What empirical observations lead to your hypothesis? ... What is algorithm X? ... What predictions derive directly from your hypothesis? ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Solution to the halting Problem?
    ... > Then so will the one generated by modifying your algorithm, ... > Even if the result is built up and written to the console little by ... Peter does not understand that algorithms produce a result. ... By calling you version of the WillHalt() ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)
  • Re: MODUNI a Good Key Generator
    ... key are useless. ... Don't use it for cryptography. ... It doesn't matter how long the pseudo-random sequence is. ... it doesn't matter how complex you make the algorithm ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • Re: Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the Halting Problem?
    ... If there is a function WillHalt() I can certainly USE its code ... > Not necessarily I could make it a memory protection fault, ... >> have the ABILITY to correctly DETERMINE if a given program X will halt ... I dare you" leaves the function your algorithm ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: On The Proper Formulation Of The Halting Problem
    ... > As it is, the main problem here is that, if LoopIfHalts ... > contains a copy of WillHalt, it may not be a perfect ... The counterexample in the Turing proof shows that the halting ... Wouldn't a halting algorithm have to be at ...
    (comp.theory)