Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem

From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 07/31/04 

Date: Sat, 31 Jul 2004 03:07:36 GMT

"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:vmmkg0hbt6hpurd4al38fi7de8td1o3u67@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2004 12:26:48 GMT, "Peter Olcott"

> >My question was my question.
>
> the answer to your question is no. you're free to ignore simple
> logic and insist you don't believe the answer's no, but continuing
> to ask the qwuestion after it's been answered thousands of times
> is bizarre. [which is why people assumed that you were not
> asking thart question, instead asking whether that's what i
> was saying...]

And you provided this response without even reading a single
word of the question below. This question that has not yet
been answered by anyone.

> >I want to know that answer to my
> >question, not my question in the context of some other question. It
> >seems to me that im each and every one of these halting problem
> >cases, I can see whether or not the program will halt or not, even if
> >the program itself can not see this.
> >
> >I can see this because the halting problem can not be constructed to
> >effect the view of the outside observer. It can't go into any infinte loop,
> >or an infinte cycle based on the results of analysis that is not available
> >to it.
> >
> >Because of this any outside observer can (in theory) solve the Halting
> >Problem. This is the same idea as the void WillHalt() function. We
> >don't have to have a void WillHalt() function, void functions are not
> >available in Turing Machines. We can have a separate memory space.
> >
> >
>
>
> ************************
>
> David C. Ullrich
>
> sorry about the inelegant formatting - typing
> one-handed for a few weeks...

Relevant Pages