Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots

From: |-|erc (gotcha_at_beauty.com)
Date: 06/29/04 

Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 10:49:03 GMT

"Daryl McCullough" <daryl@atc-nycorp.com> wrote in
> I have a problem. I have a very hard time ignoring crackpots like Peter
> Olcott when they post. I always feel like there is some way to reach
> them---that if you can only simplify the issues enough, that they will
> see the light and understand.
>
> But it never happens. Never. You can really tell after one or two

You could try answering his question?

As Peter originally put it, the output of halt should reasonably be
expected to have 3 options :

1 / the input halts
2 / the input wont halt
3 / the input contains a reference to Halt()

Isn't this exactly what Peter is saying?
Does it stand up against the halting proof? Why?

(why added so you don't blatently make unsubstantiated claims)
Herc

Relevant Pages