Re: Refutation of the DisProof of the Halting Problem

From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 07/26/04 

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:31:08 GMT

"Marc Goodman" <marc.goodman@comcast.net> wrote in message news:pgTMc.184435$XM6.144686@attbi_s53...
> Peter Olcott wrote:
> > The Halting Problem can not be solved within the degree of
> > expressability of a TM. My solution only worked because of
> > its more limited degree of expressability.
> >
> > There is no such thing as a void function in a TM, thus there is
> > no way to make constructing the counter-example program
> > impossible for a TM.
>
> This is either a much better forgery than last time, or a
> very surprising turn of events.
>
It is a very surprising turn of events. There was one message
That I read this morning that got me thinking. After I thought
about it I realized that my solution would not apply to Turing
Machines. Not that my solution required something more than
a Turing Machine, but something less. My solution required
data hiding that is not available on a Turing Machine. One
thing that the results in is the fact that I did not (yet) correctly
refute, or solve the original Halting Problem.

A solution such as the one that I was proposing would have probably
been obvious to Turing, long ago, if these features would have been
invented at the time. So it is not exactly that my solution is wrong,
it is still right in a sense. It is more along the lines that it is of much
less consequence that I had hoped.

I do have a whole other solution in mind. It merely requires the
application of ideas that I already posted. I think that I can still
disprove the original Halting Problem. It does look like it would
be a waste of time to provide anything less than a direct frontal
attack on the original proof. In it current form no one would accept
it.

I will post it in another thread anyway, just to get on record
as this idea's originator.

Relevant Pages