Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website

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


Date: 12 Aug 2004 17:05:53 GMT

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:09:50 GMT, Peter Olcott <olcott@worldnet.att.net> said:
> ...I have shown that the purely mathematical approach sometimes
> ignore crucial details that could have be applied to solving a problem.

Sorry, no. You've only shown that you haven't the least comprehension of
what the "mathematical approach" shows. In fact, you've got it exactly
backwards: The "applied" approach to the Halting Problem (which,
rigorously worked out, is really no less mathematical than the
"mathematical approach") that uses a Turing complete production
programming language instead of the simple stripped down language of TMs
is the one that adds details -- details that have you horribly confused.
If you understood the elementary proof of the "mathematical approach",
you'd realize these details are utterly superfluous.

> Specifically because these details are ignored, a solution is PRESUMED
> to be impossible.

Sorry, no. A solution is SHOWN to be impossible. Alas, your inability
to comprehend the elementary concepts of the proof prevents you from
realizing this. It's quite sad, really.

-cm



Relevant Pages

  • Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website
    ... > ignore crucial details that could have be applied to solving a problem. ... no. You've only shown that you haven't the least comprehension of ... programming language instead of the simple stripped down language of TMs ... If you understood the elementary proof of the "mathematical approach", ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website
    ... >> ignore crucial details that could have be applied to solving a problem. ... no. You've only shown that you haven't the least comprehension of ... > programming language instead of the simple stripped down language of TMs ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website
    ... no. You've only shown that you haven't the least comprehension ... >> to comprehend the elementary concepts of the proof prevents you from ... > How presumptuous is it for one person to attempt to refute another, ...
    (sci.logic)