Re: [PO] halting problem reading comprehension
From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: Sun, 05 Sep 2004 15:47:06 GMT
"David C. Ullrich" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com...
> On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 04:58:13 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >"Tim Peters" <email@example.com> 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.
> > 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.
> David C. Ullrich
> sorry about the inelegant formatting - typing
> one-handed for a few weeks...