Re: Foundation for a Formal Refutation of the Original Halting Problem?

From: >parr\(*> (gniKyruaL_at_tenretnitb.moc)
Date: 08/02/04 

Date: Mon, 2 Aug 2004 17:46:06 +0000 (UTC)

"Peter Olcott" <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:iUZOc.363697$Gx4.325998@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| This is from my response to:
| "Aatu Koskensilta" <aatu.koskensilta@xortec.fi>
| A very reasonable and intelligent person.

Peter,

Sometimes you remind me of those British Imperialists who, when faced
with a bunch of foreigners who did not understand what they said,
repeated the same thing, still in English, but louder. Those Brits,
and many modern ones too, didn't grasp that, in order to communicate
with someone, you have to speak their language.

It's the same with formal computer science theory. To persuade a
bunch of computer scientists, you have to speak in a language they
understand. To persuade a bunch of computer scientists with respect
to a specific problem, you have to address that problem in the
language in it was posed.

It is true you can discuss the Turing Halting Problem by use of
analogy or example, but to refute it, you have to do so in the
original language, addressing the original statement of the problem,
and in a manner which your critics can understand.

You may think, "If we must have a common language for this
discussion, why not use my definitions, my method proof, my form of
logic?" That would be one way of doing things, I suppose. That's
how the Brits did much of their Empire building. Plenty of manpower
and guns, total disregard for the cultures of the peoples they were
conquering, arrogant almost beyond belief.

For a while, the Brits got their way. But in the end, apart from
being wrong, they had not bothered to 'learn the language'. And they
were booted out, not always with total ignominy
~~~~~~~~
On rereading, I realised that the point above had been made to you,
in various ways and by various people at various times on your
various threads. With no useful outcome.

So where are we going to find a common language, Peter? Are you
expecting people to learn your language? Turing didn't. Are you
prepared to learn the language of your audience? Turing did.
~~~~~~~~
All the above was written after I started going through your post
with the intent to see what was need to make it clear to your
audience - see following:
~~~~~~~~

Peter, a few observations on your post:

A. You say 'Foundation'. To be a foundation, your presentation must
be absolutely solid so that the refutation to come will be soundly
based. The remaining comments here are aimed at helping you get a
good foundation statement.

B. You say 'Original Halting Problem'. What 'Original' do you mean?
Adding the word 'Turing' and giving suitable references to where the
'O.H.P' was first stated, and where subsequent amendments can be
found. [It could be I am jumping to conclusions and that you are not
considering Turing Machines.

C. This is a foundation. If you want to talk Turing, it's imperative
that you use Turing's terminology. You don't have to reiterate the
definitions here, just give a suitable reference.

| S =SourceCode for a Turing Machine

D. 'SourceCode' is not in Turing's terminolgy. Therefore it must be
defined using that terminology.

At this point, I will stop. By the end of the 1st line, you will see
there are four problems to be addressed before others would begin to
accept this as a 'Foundation'. If you really want help from me, you
know how to contact me. 

--
)>==ss$$%PARR(º>   Parr

Relevant Pages