Re: [PO] halting problem reading comprehension

From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 08/30/04 

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:06:20 GMT

"Simon G Best" <s.g.best@btopenworld.com> wrote in message news:4133078A.3090606@btopenworld.com...
> Mitch Harris wrote:
> > Simon G Best <s.g.best@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Oh, come on, Peter! If you actually bothered to properly read the many,
> >>many, many replies you've had to your posts, you'd already know and
> >>understand that it's /not/ that we don't 'get it', it's that we can see
> >>that you're /ignoring/ the corrections that have so often been posted to
> >>your 'misunderstandings'.
> >
> > But what if we're wrong?
>
> What, about the Halting Problem? Or about Olcott being willfully ignorant?
>
> Simon
>
I have set a simple and precise standard for refuting my position
that does meet the burden of proof of prving a negative. If you
want to join in with this feel free. The standard is simply to find
an input that my method can not correctly process. I am current
working with news_to_me@comcast.net (underscrose added for
emphasis) on this basis for one of my models.

The model that we are working on is one appect of my original
method. This TM only writes its output to the screen. I am using
this model, because I figure if this one can be defeated, then the
same reasoning would tend to refute all of my models. If this
reasoning can not be defeated, then I will adapt it to one of the
other models that does not require anything that a TM can not
directly provide.