Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem

From: Chris Menzel (cmenzel_at_remove-this.tamu.edu)
Date: 08/14/04 

Date: 14 Aug 2004 13:54:52 GMT

On Sat, 14 Aug 2004 11:18:43 +0000 (UTC), >parr(*> <gniKyruaL@tenretnitb.moc>
said:
>
> "Daryl McCullough" <daryl@atc-nycorp.com> wrote in message
> news:cfjvsa0o0a@drn.newsguy.com...
>| Peter Olcott says...
>|
>| >"Daryl McCullough" <daryl@atc-nycorp.com> wrote
>|
>| >> What you have not refuted (because it is provably true) is this:
>| >> There is no program H(x,y) which for any pair of inputs x and y,
>| >> *always* returns 1 if x is the code for a computer program of
> one
>| >> argument which halts on input y, and *always* returns 0
> otherwise.
>| >
>| >And the conclusion from this was...
>|
>| Whatever. Do you agree that Turing proved that there is no
>| program H(x,y) which for any pair of inputs x and y, *always*
>| returns 1 if x is the code for a computer of one argument that
>| halts on input y, and *always* returns 0 otherwise?
>
> Daryl, why not let the troll starve?

That does now seem the best strategy. Olcott's clearly just repeating
the same confused nonsense and has no capacity or desire to understand
the halting problem or his own manifold errors.

> He's nowhere where ready to understand Turing's paper. He hasn't a
> clue what Un(m) means, and particularly the significance of the 'n'
> in that expression.
>
> And nor have you. If you did, you'd know that in his paper, Turing
> also proved that for certain, limited, machines, the halting problem
> could be solved.

Why do you think Daryl doesn't know that?

Relevant Pages