Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots

From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 07/08/04 

Date: Thu, 08 Jul 2004 03:43:15 GMT

> This post is after literally dozens and dozens of attempts to
> address Peter Olcott's points on a technical level. Those attempts
> have accomplished nothing.

Because you continued to base all of your assessment
against the fundamental premise that I am incorrect.
Iff I am correct, then this basis would naturally lead
nowhere. You spend all of your time and energy refuting
me such that there is none left for comprehension.

Its seem that the most apt way to describe the reason for
our differences is that mine might be more philosophical.
In particular exactly what is meant by the term limitation.

The Halting Problem shows that TM's have a fundamental
limitation. I don't buy that this meaning of limitation agrees
with the common usage of the term limitation. Since (at
least from my point of view) all of conceptual truth is merely
the mathematical mapping between symbolic and or phonetic
physical representations and their corresponding set of
semantic meanings, it seem to me that calling the inability
of TM's to solve the Halting Problem a "limitation" would
be incorrect.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast