Re: Refutation of the DisProof of the Halting Problem

From: >parr\(*> (KurlyGina_at_tenretnitb.moc)
Date: 07/26/04 

Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 12:17:29 +0000 (UTC)

"Peter Olcott" <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:M1_Mc.136221$OB3.9314@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
|
| "Marc Goodman" <marc.goodman@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:pgTMc.184435$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.

I couldn't find any flaw in your reasoning [correct conclusions have
been arrived at by wrong reasoning before now, so it's not a bad idea
to check.]

| 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.

Thanks for being courageous enough to post this. 

--
)>==ss$$%PARR(º>   Parr

Relevant Pages