Re: [PO] halting problem reading comprehension
From: Chris Menzel (cmenzel_at_remove-this.tamu.edu)
Date: 08/30/04
- Next message: Nick Smallbone: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Previous message: Mitch Harris: "Re: [PO] halting problem: existence proofs"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: [PO] halting problem reading comprehension"
- Next in thread: Mitch Harris: "Re: [PO] halting problem reading comprehension"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 30 Aug 2004 12:44:40 GMT
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 12:06:20 GMT, Peter Olcott <olcott@worldnet.att.net> said:
> I have set a simple and precise standard for refuting my position that
> does meet the burden of proof of prving a negative.
Alas, there already *is* a standard for refutation than which none
simpler or more precise can be conceived: prove that no TM computes the
Halts function. Or, to avoid the Horror Negativa, let's be positive
about it: every TM computes a function other than the Halts function.
That's what Turing showed. Sad that your inability to comprehend his
simple proof has led you on your rather pitiable wild goose chase.
> 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.
Too bad you don't "work with" Turing.
- Next message: Nick Smallbone: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Previous message: Mitch Harris: "Re: [PO] halting problem: existence proofs"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: [PO] halting problem reading comprehension"
- Next in thread: Mitch Harris: "Re: [PO] halting problem reading comprehension"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
