Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?

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

Date: Thu, 05 Aug 2004 01:32:11 GMT

"Simon G Best" <s.g.best@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:411185F4.6080006@btopenworld.com...
> Peter Olcott wrote:
> >
> > No one (not even one person) has gone through what I have said
> > point by point, and found any holes in my conclusion.
>
> That's plainly untrue. See the newsgroup comp.theory for plenty of
> examples.
>
> > All that Turing proved was that it is impossible to construct a Halt
> > Analyzer that always returns the correct result of the Halt Analysis
> > to the program (or TM) being analyzed.
>
> Which means that it's impossible for a halt analyzer to be a Turing Machine.

Any computation that can be carried out by mechanical means can be
performed by some Turing Machine.

You must have a very limited understanding of this.

> > Dozens of people will claim that this statement is incorrect. Not one
> > person will ever be able to show exactly why and how this statement
> > is incorrect.
>
> http://www.turingarchive.org/browse.php/B/12
>
> > About all that I have gotten in the way of refutation of this statement is
> > "you are wrong because you don't know logic".
>
> Plainly untrue. See the newsgroup sci.logic for plenty of examples.

Try and quote any. I have not found one single example that was
not incorrect for one reason or another, or only pointed out an
error of no consequence to my primary point. Most were merely
vague generalizations such as "you are wrong because you don't know logic"

>
> > No one ever will
> > point out any specific error in the above statement specifically because
> > there is no error to be found. The statement is correct.
>
> Are you blue in the face, yet?

I was surprised that you did not disagree with it. It seems that most people
disagree with most everything that I say. One guy clearly does disagree
with everything, I guess that's his thing.

> Quite why you think repeated assertions - especially ones which are now
> plainly false - are going to convince anyone is quite something of a
> mystery.
>
> Simon
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?
    ... > That's plainly untrue. ... See the newsgroup sci.logic for plenty of examples. ... I was surprised that you did not disagree with it. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Accusations of Posting Binaries
    ... Paul J Gans writes ... binaries to this newsgroup. ... This, as you all know, is untrue. ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: C# equivalent of VB.NET "For Each"
    ... > MSDN and on the web without finding it. ... > on a newsgroup. ... >> IMHO, given the voluminous documentation made available by Microsoft, ... There are plenty of things which are either unclear in the ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • Re: Accusations of Posting Binaries
    ... In message, Simon Pugh writes ... binaries to this newsgroup. ... This, as you all know, is untrue. ...
    (soc.history.medieval)
  • Re: damn.
    ... This newsgroup is full of on-topic discussions. ... There's plenty of off-topic stuff too, ... other people's support. ... extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/ ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)