Re: functions that halt

From: |-|erc (contactvia_at_wwwadamskingdom.com)
Date: 04/16/04 

Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:53:38 +1000

 \ oo
   \____|\mn
    / /_/ /\ \_\ - Herc, The Unrecognised Truman
  / K-9/ \/_/ - Join www.chatty.net -
/____/_____\ - Nanotechnology is gonna be HUGE... (RMF)
--------------

"Barb Knox" <see@sig.below> wrote in
> >> > Does it disprove Barbs diagnonalistion attack on a theory of
> >> > guaranteed halting functions being equivalent in power to the
> >> > class of TMs?
> >>
> >> Yes, as the diagonalization function cannot be placed in a TM.

Barb misses things, I think she's a 60 year old spinster been lecturing the
same text book for so long anything that doesn't fit she can only gloss over.

>
> But you're making progress (unlike, e.g., "Herc", who has ideological reasons
> for refusing to understand diagonal arguments in general).

and most contributors to the thread all see this ideological objection to your blind
application of diagonalisation as evident.

Herc