Re: Foundation for a Formal Refutation of the Original Halting Problem?

From: >parr\(*> (gniKyruaL_at_tenretnitb.moc)
Date: 08/16/04

  • Next message: >parr\(*>: "Re: Can returning a value change the value itself (in the Halting Problem)" 
    Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:43:11 +0000 (UTC)

    "Owen Jacobson" <angstrom@lionsanctuary.net> wrote in message
    news:pan.2004.08.04.05.00.47.135323@lionsanctuary.net...
    <...>
    | The second example is clearly incorrect as it
    | provides no correct inputs to Halt, but I
    | strongly suspect he means Halt (Halt,
    | (LoopIfHalts, LoopIfHalts)) (where (LIH, LIH)
    | is an encoding of the parameters to Halt).
    <...>
    | Since, in order to satisfy the definition of a
    | program that can determine if arbitrary
    | programs and their inputs halt, none of these
    | requirements may be ignores, we can conclude
    | that no program can exist to satisfy all of
    | these requirements.
    |
    | Note that LoopIfHalts is clearly a perverse
    | case designed specifically to thwart Halt (M,
    | x). This does not excuse Halt (M, x); one of
    | the requirements (the last one, in my list) is
    | that Halt (M, x) must be able to analyze any
    | program and its input.

    Nice try, Owen

    Peter will reply in one of the following ways:

      You are wrong
      I am right
      Showing one case is not enough
      You deliberately chose a pathological function
      My program is prevented from behaving that way 

    --
)>==ss$$%PARR(º>   Parr
  • Next message: >parr\(*>: "Re: Can returning a value change the value itself (in the Halting Problem)"

    Relevant Pages
    Loading