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

From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 08/05/04 

Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 00:25:39 GMT

"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:omi1h09lm1ducfchgeimbv71qbn3umh9hb@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 02:09:06 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
> <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> >Line 01) void LoopIfHalts(string SourceCode, string InputData)
> >Line 02) {
> >Line 03) if (WillHalt(SourceCode, InputData) == TRUE)
> >Line 04) while (TRUE) // loop forever
> >Line 05) ;
> >Line 06) else
> >Line 07) return; // FALSE or UNKNOWN
> >Line 08) }
> >
> >Are you in Denial or what? What does lines 03 and 04 do???
>
> it goes into an infinite loop if willhalt says that the
> program being analyzed, namely 'SourceCode, InputData',
> halts.
>
> it certainly does not modify the behavior of that
> program. [hint: those two lines are part of loopifhalts,

Ah so then you are saying that the behavior of LoopIfHalts
would be identical when WillHalt returns true, as it would be
if WillHalt returned something other than true?

The Boolean return value of true returned to LoopIfHalts
alters the behavior of LoopIfHalts as contrasted with the
behavior of LoopIfHalts when a Boolean value of true is
not returned to it. Basically telling LoopIfHalts that it
will halt makes it NOT HALT, so simply don't tell it!

> so they have an effect on the behavior of loopifhalts.]
>
> >> I don't understand why it matters. LET Peter's program use
> >> magic if he wants to. It still doesn't allow his program to
> >> return a correct "yes/no" answer on pathological cases like
> >> the one Turing used. And, he can't claim that those pathological
> >> cases don't exist because he needs Turing's proof to do that.
> >>
> >> How can Peter's program possibly return correct results
> >> for a program that halts if it loops, and loops if it
> >> halts? It might be a lot easier to convince him that
> >> neither "halt" nor "loop" are correct answers, and that
> >> answering "neither" doesn't disprove Turing's proof.
> >>
> >
>
>
> ************************
>
> David C. Ullrich
>
> sorry about the inelegant formatting - typing
> one-handed for a few weeks...

Relevant Pages