Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem

From: Karl Heinz Buchegger (kbuchegg_at_gascad.at)
Date: 08/13/04 

Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 14:34:35 +0200

Peter Olcott wrote:
>
> "Karl Heinz Buchegger" <kbuchegg@gascad.at> wrote in message news:411C7BCE.24617B83@gascad.at...
> > Peter Olcott wrote:
>
> > > Yup it is completely obvious to anyone whom has not thought it through
> > > at all.
> >
> > Actually the opposite is true:
> > Anybody thinking that *not returning the result* and at the same time
> > is claiming that the machine *produces a result* has not thought
> > it through all to the end. At the moment the machine produces a
> > result, it *is* possible to return it to the caller and it is
> > this sheer possibility of this, which makes the paradox possible.
> >
> > --
> > Karl Heinz Buchegger
> > kbuchegg@gascad.at
>
> It could determine is invocation context before beginning to
> derive a result. If it was called within the context of another
> TM it could simply halt. It does not even need to write a space
> to a specific memory location. It could simply halt.
> (See what I mean about thinking it through?)

In which case you are no longer consistent with the requirement
that the Halting function has to produce a correct result
in the range of
     Halt
or Does not Halt.

In other words: you no longer have a Halting Analyzer which fullfills
the requirements and thus by definiton have not solved the Halting
Problem. You solved something else, but not the Halting Problem. 

-- 
Karl Heinz Buchegger
kbuchegg@gascad.at

Relevant Pages