Re: Peter Olcott's Source of Confusion
From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 07/01/04
- Next message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Peter Olcott's Source of Confusion"
- Previous message: Ronald: "Re: Harassed by remote voice to skull. Yikes!"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: Peter Olcott's Source of Confusion"
- Next in thread: Peter Olcott: "Re: Peter Olcott's Source of Confusion"
- Reply: Peter Olcott: "Re: Peter Olcott's Source of Confusion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 07:55:44 -0500
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:06:42 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
<olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Bull. You've stated explicitly that the halting problem can
>> be solved. I asked for a solution, and you said explicitly
>> that what you meant to say was that the proof of the
>> unsolvability was invalid, and as far as you were concerned
>> it was an open question. And how you're saying that the
>> proof is valid, but it just doesn't prove much.
>
>That was my one mistake.
Your one mistake. Right.
Actually when the one mistake is saying that the halting
problem can't be solved, then changing your mind and
saying it can be solved, that really _does_ make your
claims to understand it better than _anyone_ else a
little fishy. It really does.
>But then that was when other people
>were redefining what the Halting Problem was.
Bull. Nobody but you has been redefining what the
problem is. The fact that you _think_ that people
have been redefining it shows that people have been
precisely correct when they've said that you don't
_know_ what the problem actually is.
Let's see. You're not sure what the problem is
(or if you are now, you were not previously, at
the time when you _began_ claiming to understand
it better than anyone). You vacillate between
saying that the standard proof that it can't be
solved is correct and not correct. None of this
should give anyone any reason to doubt that you
understand it better than anyone else on the
planet.
Giggle.
>> >There are two major points:
>> >(1) If one accepts that the counter-example to the Halting Problem
>> >is a legitimate question, then this counter-example conclusively
>> >proves that no program can correctly determine if all other programs
>> >will halt.
>> >
>> >http://home.att.net/~olcott/halts.txt
>> >
>> >(2) If one examines this counter example program more closely
>> >one finds that a stronger claim can be made. No single entity
>> >can possibly provide the correct answer to whether or not
>> >the program halts.
>>
>> No. It's incredibly obvious that there is a program that
>> determines this.
>You have claimed this several times now, and failed to prove
>it.
The proof is trivial, and I've given it at least three
times so far, including once today, in a post farther
down in the thread(s).
>My estimate is that you can not possibly prove that there
>is any program that can correctly provide the answer to
>whether or not the complete C++ program referred to by
>the link will halt or not.
You don't understand the issues. The fact that you don't
understand the issues is clear when I state that given
a program-input pair there _is_ a program that will
decide whether it halts and you reply as though I'd
said I can determine whether some program you wrote
will halt or not. The second does not follow from
the first.
> I will further claim that you did not
>even bother to look at this program before you claimed that
>you were certain that you could determine that it would halt.
That's correct, I didn't. Because the trivial proof
applies to _any_ program-input pair. (I gather from
comments from people who _have_ looked that you're
expecting people to say whether it halts _before_
you specify the input - one more proof that you
simply don't understand what the problem _is_.)
It's like I prove that every integer is either
odd or even. You put up a web page and claim
that it displays an integer which is neither
odd nor even. No, I don't need to look at that
page to know that that integer is either odd
or even.
>Any idiot can make empty claims. Any idiot can claim that
>they already proved these empty claims? Are you more
>than any idiot?
>
************************
David C. Ullrich
- Next message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Peter Olcott's Source of Confusion"
- Previous message: Ronald: "Re: Harassed by remote voice to skull. Yikes!"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: Peter Olcott's Source of Confusion"
- Next in thread: Peter Olcott: "Re: Peter Olcott's Source of Confusion"
- Reply: Peter Olcott: "Re: Peter Olcott's Source of Confusion"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
