Re: [PO] halting problem reading comprehension

From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 09/05/04 

Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 15:47:06 GMT

"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:a6rlj0hrsseb7d0lu2fsdu694r8mrka2e4@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 04:58:13 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
> <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Tim Peters" <tim.one@comcast.net> wrote in message news:q4mdnYF808Tx9qfcRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
> >> [Peter Olcott]
> >> > This was the key missing piece in every refutation. They never
> >> > bothered to say that it would be used as input to my unmodified
> >> > Halt Analyzer.
> >>
> >> Ya, they did. I'm glad you persisted with newstome long enough to "get"
> >> that point, but all pieces of this puzzle were explained multiple times by
> >> multiple posters.
> >>
> >> > If they would have said this then the whole issue of not meeting the
> >> > burden of proof of proving a negative would have never arisen.
> >>
> >> I'm glad too that you got something out of this, but have to remind that you
> >> could have gotten so much more. This (still confused) business about
> >> "proving a negative" is another area where multiple explanations went
> >> unheeded.
> >>
> >>
> >It was not at all confused. Since they did not bother to mention
> >that they intended the changes to my model to be used as input
> >to my unchanged model,
>
> that's -not- part of the simple proof that the things you've
> said are impossible.
>
> > it was indeed an example of the failure
> >to meet the burden of proof of proving a negative.
>
> nonsense.
>
> > Without the
> >missing piece of reasoning, all that they were saying is that they
> >could make my model not work by changing the code.
> >
> >When this is not intended to be used as input to my unmodified
> >model, this is just like trying to prove that no automobile will ever
> >run because one automobile can be made not to run.
>
> your inability to -follow- simple logic is staggering.
>
> it's not like what you say. it's like [somehow] -proving-
> that if one specific automobile xannot run then no
> automobile can run. [which was pointed out the last time
> you gave this confused analogy, btw.]
>
> >They may
> >have known that this was their intended use in the back of their
> >mind, yet by failing to specify this their refutation of my reasoning
> >was incorrect.
> >

It is not at all a confused analogy. Will Twentyman
provided this exact an precise reasoning. All that I
did was substitute his reference to "my halt analyzer"
for "my automobile" and his reasoning proved that
"my automobile" does not run because it can be
made not to run.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=hndVc.481039%24Gx4.68371%40bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net

>
> ************************
>
> David C. Ullrich
>
> sorry about the inelegant formatting - typing
> one-handed for a few weeks...

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Olcott is cured of CrackPottery! (Halting Problem)
    ... I suspect that the reality is that it ... >>expectation that a halt analyzer simply does or does not always work. ... > When I substituted the term AUTOMOBILE for every reference ... > reasoning was very far from correct. ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Olcott is cured of CrackPottery! (Halting Problem)
    ... I suspect that the reality is that it ... >>expectation that a halt analyzer simply does or does not always work. ... > When I substituted the term AUTOMOBILE for every reference ... > reasoning was very far from correct. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: [PO] halting problem reading comprehension
    ... Since they did not bother to mention ... >>run because one automobile can be made not to run. ... yet by failing to specify this their refutation of my reasoning ... It is not at all a confused analogy. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: [PO] halting problem reading comprehension
    ... but all pieces of this puzzle were explained multiple times by ... >> multiple posters. ... >run because one automobile can be made not to run. ... yet by failing to specify this their refutation of my reasoning ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: [PO] halting problem reading comprehension
    ... but all pieces of this puzzle were explained multiple times by ... >> multiple posters. ... >run because one automobile can be made not to run. ... yet by failing to specify this their refutation of my reasoning ...
    (sci.logic)