Re: Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the Halting Problem?

From: Kent Paul Dolan (xanthian_at_well.com)
Date: 07/13/04 

Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 18:52:32 +0000 (UTC)

"Peter Olcott" <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> In any case since this does not address any of the
> points that I made it is not any form of valid
> refutation.

And there is the essential issue of your zen
kook-nature.

None of your "points" require the least bit of
attention from the amused onlookers, however
crushing that datum may be to your ego, however
unacceptable that indifference may be to your
glory-obsessed mind.

We aren't required to _care_ about your personal
problems, just about the computer theory contention
at hand, and some _straightforward_ way to decide
it.

In particular we are _not_ required to choose
some way of addressing the issue that follows a
kook-rules agenda, say, for example "the only valid
refutation of Peter's contention is refuting Peter's
muddled and incomprehensible points one by one, so
that he can raise them in new guises having learned
nothing, since he still thinks that patching up his
arguments will overturn a proof that his base
contention is incorrect, having failed to learn the
contrary".

Our time is _much_ better invested helping you learn
that you are _never_ going to achieve your goal, so
you will shut up about it, quit wasting our time and
patience, and go find another choice of obsessions.

Better yet, go learn some computer theory and start
spending your efforts on open issues where you have
some chance of making a contribution beyond annoying
people; we aren't rejecting you as a person, just as
a competent computer theorist, after all.

You simply are incapable of understanding that a
"valid refutation" of your logic-from-outer-space is
EXACTLY: a valid proof that the opposite of your
contention is true.

Not one single thing else is necessary, computer
theory proofs don't work like that, another factoid
you need to internalize.

The proof that the halting problem is not solvable
is of long standing, is easily replicable by anyone
with a bare grasp of how to do a computer theory
proof at all, apparently not counting you among
their ranks, and has been challenged and the
challenges rebuffed until the issue is no longer in
doubt among sane individuals.

While you cannot understand that, you are incapable
of thinking at all, in any useful sense, much less
of doing mathematics as applied to computer theory.

While you reject every input pointing out exactly
where your errors lie, you are practicing invincible
ignorance, a severe and crippling mental health
disorder. I suggest you alter that behavior, for
your own well-being.

xanthian, too easily amused by the too easy hobby of
abusing kooks. I really should take on something
more challenging to me personally, like remembering,
around my severe depression, to bathe occasionally
when indoor temperatures are above blood heat every
day for a month. 

-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG