Troll-crap warning [was Re: Can returning a value change the value itself (in the Halting Problem)]
From: >parr\(*> (LauryKing_at_BTInternetnospam.com)
Date: 08/19/04
- Next message: >parr\(*>: "Troll-dunce alert [was: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem]"
- Previous message: >parr\(*>: "Troll-weapon alert [was Can returning a value change the value itself (in the Halting Problem)]"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: Can returning a value change the value itself (in the Halting Problem)"
- Next in thread: wgempel: "Re: Can returning a value change the value itself (in the Halting Problem)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 20:27:32 +0000 (UTC)
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:UlTUc.223165$OB3.212237@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
| "wgempel" <wgempel@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d6b61672.0408180940.2a041d24@posting.google.com...
| > The key point you seem to be missing is that
| > there is no "calling"
|
| > In any event LOOPIFHALT would have the desired
| > properties just by not including the sections of
| > HALT that implement these measures. You haven't
| > even come up with measures which influence the
| > output of HALT. They are simply extraneous code
| > that can be removed in the construction of
| > LOOPIFHALT.
| >
| > To be even more clear:
| >
| > There is no mechanism for constructing HALT which
| > can prevent the construction of LOOPIFHALT. We
| > could play intricate games of extending the model
| > and then trying to find the correct counterploys,
| > but it would be a waste of time. Unless you wish
| > to dispute the Church-Turing Thesis, you should
| > recognize that no modification of the TM model
| > will help.
|
| It seems that you are merely yet another one of the dozen's
| of people that just don't quite get the idea of proving a
| negative.
The proof used by Turing, i.e., demonstrating that a contradiction
arises, will still apply to your variant of the halting problem. If
you think otherwise, I suggest you hasten along to a learned society
and get them to publish your work.
| You must not merely derive a means whereby Halt
| can be thwarted. You must derive the reasoning to show that
| halt can not exist.
|
| In other words you must show that halt can not possibly
| avoid being thwarted by any means what-so-ever. I only have
| to prove that it can work in one case. You must show that
| it is impossible in each and every case.
This last is a steaming heap of Troll-crap. You have to prove it
works in every single one of the infinity of possible cases. And the
disproof, already given by dozen's [sic] of people, merely has to
show a single case where 'your', as yet unpublished, design fails.
-- )>==ss$$%PARR(º> Parr
- Next message: >parr\(*>: "Troll-dunce alert [was: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem]"
- Previous message: >parr\(*>: "Troll-weapon alert [was Can returning a value change the value itself (in the Halting Problem)]"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: Can returning a value change the value itself (in the Halting Problem)"
- Next in thread: wgempel: "Re: Can returning a value change the value itself (in the Halting Problem)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
