Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem

From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 07/27/04 

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2004 05:08:40 -0500

On Tue, 27 Jul 2004 00:44:37 GMT, "Anonymous" <anonymous@home.net>
wrote:

>This is absolutely obnoxious.

If you say so. In fact the guy _has_ been making a complete
idiot of himself in front of the entire world for quite a
while now, and his latest idiocies _do_ seem much more
idiotic than before, for the reasons listed. If _I_ were
making a fool of myself like that I'd appreciate someone
clueing me in on the fact.

You really don't find anything ludicrous about the
situation when the guy announces he's a genius who
understands computability theory better than Turing
and Church, but then turns around and says he doesn't
understand a simple proof in an undergraduate text
book? (When that's exactly the simple proof that
he's been "refuting"?)

>"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message
>news:drp9g05tbphr6q850ah1orho5dq99cbvvs@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 02:55:13 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
>> <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >www.halting-problem.com
>> >
>> >This is just to get on record as this idea's originator.
>> >This posting will probably be the one that is the least clear.
>> >My goal is to translate these ideas into a direct frontal attack
>> >of the original proof. Anyone willing to help me learn this
>> >proof, your help would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Why don't you give this up and take up a new hobby? Like
>> you gat a T-shirt made that says "I am an idiot" on both
>> sides and wear it every morning when you go jogging?
>>
>> See, that way you'd only be announcing your idiocy to
>> people in the neighborhood, instead of to the entire world,
>> the way you're doing at present. Yes, that is what you're
>> doing, in at least two ways:
>>
>> (i) Announcing that you need help learning this proof marks
>> you as an incredible idiot - the proof is _very_ simple,
>> and it's been explained to you many times already.
>>
>> (ii) Announcing that you need help learning this proof
>> makes your earlier pronouncements about how you're a
>> genius who understands all this better than _anyone_
>> sort of hilarious.
>>
>> (iii) Even if it were a non-trivial proof, so that having
>> a hard time following it would not be so funny, announcing
>> that you intend to overturn it _before_ you've actually
>> _learned_ it would be extremely hilarious. You _say_ you
>> don't know how the proof actually works, but in spite of
>> that you know it's wrong.
>>
>> >I will state the idea here just to get on record that I am the
>originator.
>>
>> Bad idea. Most people would not want to be known as the originator
>> of this sort of crap.
>>
>> >I have said this many times, and so far no one has accepted it.
>>
>> Because all your arguments have been wrong. As even you have
>> recently admitted.
>>
>> >From
>> >my point of view they don't accept it because they don't fully understand
>> >it. Here is goes:
>> >
>> >If the state transition diagram representation of the Halting Problem
>> >In An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata, by Peter Lintz
>> >copyright 1990 pages 317-321 accurately represents the actual
>> >Halting Problem, then what is taken to be a proof that solving the
>> >Halting Problem is impossible, can not be correctly concluded
>> >from the proof.
>> >
>> >What the proof really shows is that there is one way to attempt
>> >to solve the Halting Problem that is bound to fail.
>>
>> Idiot.
>>
>>
>>
>> ************************
>>
>> David C. Ullrich
>

************************

David C. Ullrich

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem
    ... >> of this sort of crap. ... >> Idiot. ... >> David C. Ullrich ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: A universal introduction rule
    ... "David C. Ullrich" wrote, ... Dirk van Dalen's book Logic and Structure p.188 gives "a ... Well, I didn't know sort of at what level your confusion was, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: spoiler 1.2.10
    ... But isn't David an idiot? ... He's convinced that this man must be a pervert of some sort, even though he's only in his "early" 20s (how old is that? ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)
  • Re: spoiler 1.2.10
    ... But isn't David an idiot? ... pervert of some sort, even though he's only in his "early" 20s (how ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)
  • Re: spoiler 1.2.10
    ... But isn't David an idiot? ... pervert of some sort, even though he's only in his "early" 20s (how ...
    (uk.media.radio.archers)