Re: [PO] Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?

From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 08/30/04 

Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 07:58:53 -0500

On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:15:40 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
<olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>
>"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:1926j05c33gk149fp7nc3cbok7giuc8ck6@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 29 Aug 2004 17:11:04 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
>> <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >"Robert Low" <mtx014@linux.services.coventry.ac.uk> wrote in message news:cgsvv8$35r$2@sunbeam.coventry.ac.uk...
>> >>
>> >> Mitch Harris <harrisq@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de> wrote:
>> >> >TMs that have only write-only-memory are pretty boring. Why would you
>> >> >limit yourself to such TMs?
>> >>
>> >> Who cares? If something can't be done by any Turing machine at
>> >> all, it certainly can't be done by one which satisfies
>> >> some additional constraint.
>> >
>> >Yet the possibility exists that the conclusion that it can't
>> >be done by any Turing Machine at all is incorrect.
>>
>> no, there is no such possibility. the fact that you're either
>> to stupid or too obstinate to follow a simple proof doesn't
>> change that.
>>
>> >That
>> >is my whole point. So far in about two months no one
>> >has fully (and correctly) refuted this position.
>>
>> just as the fact that you keep saying this doesn't make
>> it so.
>
>Likewise with what you are saying. Why don't you join in
>the refutation developed by newstome@comcast.net?

because all the silly things you've said have already been
adequately refuted many times. the fact that you've said
you're going to study this one carefully because he's a
cs professor proves to more than one person that you
haven't been paying proper attention to the many previous
refutations. the fact that you judge arguments on the
basis of the credentials of the author instead of the
validity of the argument indicates, well i'm not sure
exactly what, but it's not good.

look. you've never stated exactly where the error is in
a carefully constructed proof of the theorem for tm's,
all you've done is claim it doesn't apply in some silly
situation that's not quite a tm. yet when you feel it's
convenient you fell free to invoke church's thesis.
the things you say are not even internally consistent.

in particular, you've insisted all along that the
proof doesn't apply to some otm that writes the
result to write-only memory or displays it on
the screen or whatever. those otm's are not turing
machines, so of course a proof about tms does not
directly apply. but it doesn't matter, because it's
incredibly easy to show that such an otm cannot
solve the halting problem:

1. assume that m is an otm that solves the halting
problem.

2. let t be a program that does exactly the same
as what m does, -except- for the final io: it
simply returns 0 or 1.

3. the proof that [of course] you've never refuted
shows that t cannot exist.

4. hence m cannot exist.

that -is- a refutation of every one of the dodges
i've seen from you. you've never replied except
with added irrelevant dodges [irrelevant because
the same argument shows the new dodge cannot work]
or with silly [and false] statements about how people
don't understand the burden of proof.

regardless of -what- anyone says you have the ability
to simply -state- it's not valid. and it's clear
you're going to do that, because it's clear you're
not actually interested in the truth.

>You only have to derive an example of data that one
>model of my methods can not possibly process. Read
>the prior postings between him and me for the details.

unless i missed something you haven't even got around
to specifying that model yet.

************************

David C. Ullrich

sorry about the inelegant formatting - typing
one-handed for a few weeks...