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

From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 08/14/04 

Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2004 23:28:31 GMT

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:mdmtu1-0rk.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
> In sci.logic, Peter Olcott
> <olcott@worldnet.att.net>
> wrote
> on Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:15:22 GMT
> <ubJSc.200491$OB3.149139@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
> > If you make you point much more succinctly I will respond to it.
>
> You want succinct? Try this.
>
> Given any machine type Mx with side effect x, I can construct an
> isomorphic standard Turing machine M(x). If you have a
> WillHaltx, I can construct a WillHalt(x). Since WillHalt(x)
> is impossible, WillHaltx is also impossible.
>
> I can't make it much more succinct than that. :-P
>
> [rest snipped for succinctness]
>
> --
> #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
> It's still legal to go .sigless.

It look like you just claimed that you can prove that
no TM ever can do anything correctly. If I derive
a TM that adds together two integers, you can make
a machine that fails to add together two integers, thus
proving that no machine can correctly add two integers.

That's what it looks like you just said.
I suspect that you need to look into the difficulty
or proving a negative. For many things this is
completely impossible. To prove that no TM
can possibly solve the Halting Problem is a form
of proving a negative.

Relevant Pages