Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem

From: Chris Menzel (cmenzel_at_remove-this.tamu.edu)
Date: 08/12/04 

Date: 12 Aug 2004 17:23:33 GMT

Sucked back into the Olcottian black hole, eh, Darryl? :-) Right on the
money, as usual.

On 12 Aug 2004 08:43:24 -0700, Daryl McCullough <daryl@atc-nycorp.com> said:
> Peter Olcott says...
>
>>Quick Summary:
>>Alan Turing conclusively proved is that it is impossible to construct a halt
>>analyzer that always returns a correct result back to the program being
>>analyzed.
>>
>>Since returning the result back to the program being analyzed is not the only
>>way to construct a halt analyzer, his proof did not show that constructing a
>>halt analyzer that works correctly for all input is impossible.
>
> Turing *defined* what he meant by a "solution to the halting problem"
> and by that definition, there *is* no solution. You are proposing a
> *different* definition. Turing's proof does not *directly* apply to
> your new definition. You haven't refuted Turing, you've changed the
> subject.
> ...
> You're using the tricks of a professional psychic --- if someone attempts
> to actually *test* whether the psychic has psychic abilities, the psychic
> claims that "Oh, my abilities don't work in the presence of cynics and
> doubters". If that's the psychic's claim, then there is, indeed, no
> way to prove that the psychic is a fraud. But you would strongly suspect
> it.
>
> Peter, you are a fraud of the exact same kind.
>
> --
> Daryl McCullough
> Ithaca, NY

Relevant Pages