Re: Alan Turing's Halting Problem is Incorrect (FINAL PART)

From: Acme Diagnostics (LFinezapthis_at_partpostmark.net)
Date: 07/07/04 

Date: 7 Jul 2004 13:05:04 -0500

"Peter Olcott" <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

Hi Peter. I have no interest in the Halting Problem on Turing
computers, only on real ones. You seem to be the resident expert on
that, at least wrt explaining same. Please check out the computer
program on this page (CS Dept, University of Maryland):

http://www.csee.umbc.edu/~squire/cs451_l26.html

Isn't that the same as your example in the respect that they both
contrive the same logical paradox to make the counterexample?

Is diagonal.c a good demonstration of the Halting Problem on
real computers?

Is there no other counter-example for real computers, other than
essentially a compiler error-checking its own self for infinite loops
containing this contrived paradox?

That specific case seems rather trivial in practice wrt real computer
programming.

>I can derive no other reasonable conclusion.
>Some of the things that I am saying would be
>easily understood by every five year old, yet
>are not "understood" in this forum.

I've encountered that in this group, but only with a couple of
posters, not some of the heavy-hitters who you are encountering. In my
case, there was a simple explanation. It doesn't necessarily mean that
either you or they are deficient in any way. You could both be right if
you have separate contexts, adding typical newsgroup dynamics of most
being invested and competitive in the one theoretical logic context.

But if you've said things that place your "trivial" characterization in
theoretical logic context, then I would agree that you are in error.
In that context, the Halting Problem is decided, and non-trivial.

For example, every 10-year-old (bumping your analogy a bit)
knows the Liar's Paradox and that it is trivial in the real-world.
Would "real-world" in this case also include your "semantics?"
But the Liar's Paradox is very non-trivial in theoretical logic.

Regarding context, I offer the following short article by yours truly,
with two paragraphs titled "Point-of-View," but specifically the
examples at the very end, of how basic assumptions or a prioris can
make two POV's irreconcilable but still legitimate. When I read
about your "truth condition" in "pure semantics," which sounds pretty a
priori to me, I wonder if you and your adversaries don't have such a
legitimate but irreconcilable difference based on POV.

http://thor.prohosting.com/~chrismay

Thanks,

Larry

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Alan Turings Halting Problem is Incorrect (FINAL PART)
    ... unsolvability of the Halting Problem for a real programming language. ... The Halting Problem isn't really about computers, at least not directly, ... > computers* that does not contrive a logic paradox to make the proof? ... A paradox is an argument in which a contradiction follows from ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Alan Turings Halting Problem is Incorrect (FINAL PART)
    ... >unsolvability of the Halting Problem for a real programming language. ... with computers. ... A paradox is an argument in which a contradiction follows from ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: A modern view of the halting problem
    ... Turing did basically introduce turning machines as a formal way ... Entscheidungsproblem could be recast as the halting problem, ... And of course the results have no special relationship to computers. ... the halting problem is something of a triviality (just like ...
    (alt.lang.asm)
  • Re: Penrose vs the Robot
    ... >> So, yes, it is like the liar paradox, except that it isn't a paradox. ... However, because humans can't do it, and computers can't ... abstractions into physical reality with a one-to-one correspondence. ... Penrose is claiming/stipulating that a human mathematician ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: A modern view of the halting problem
    ... The generalized proof of undecideability (the generic problem posed by ... the halting problem) does *not* apply to humans. ... Machines* (an abstract model which models all real computers, ... on the claim that a disassembler cannot differentiate code and data, ...
    (alt.lang.asm)