Re: Alan Turing's Halting Problem is Incorrect (FINAL PART)
From: Martin Shobe (mshobe_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 07/10/04
- Next message: Kenneth Doyle: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Previous message: Poker Joker: "Re: How to prove the resolution method in propositional logic is complete ?"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: Alan Turing's Halting Problem is Incorrect (FINAL PART)"
- Next in thread: Peter Olcott: "Re: Alan Turing's Halting Problem is Incorrect (FINAL PART)"
- Reply: Peter Olcott: "Re: Alan Turing's Halting Problem is Incorrect (FINAL PART)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 03:37:04 GMT
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 22:24:44 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
<olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >> Limitation: The act of limiting or the state of being limited.
>> >> Limit: The point, edge, or line beyond which something cannot or
>> >> may not proceed.
>> >>
>> >> Notice that limits are not relative to other entities.
>> >>
>> >> Martin
>> >>
>> >Try limited and limitation, they are closer in my dictionary.
>> >
>>
>> I already had limitation. Here is limited. (Again from
>> Dictionary.com)
>>
>> Limited: To confine or restrict within a boundary or bounds.
>>
>> Again, no mention of other entities.
>>
>> Martin
>
>The big program with the KR of AI is that the meaning
>of words is defined by the meaning of the words that
>they are defined by on and on recursively to great depth.
>
>This is what I mean by the term "limits", "limitation", and
>"limited", the meaning behind their meaning.
So you aren't using only the primary definitions. Or are you a
dialethist and only using primary definitions while using definitions
that aren't primary?
>
>The original Halting Problem actually boils down to
>an analytical impossibility. If analytical impossibility
>and limit meant exactly the same thing, then there
>would be no need for speed limit signs. People could
>not break a limit that is also an analytical impossibility.
Speed limits and the limits to computability that Turing prooved are
all limits. The fact that speed limits can be broken while Turing's
can't doesn't change that. It's also strange that you appear to think
that a limit that can be broken is harder to get around than a limit
that can't.
Martin
- Next message: Kenneth Doyle: "Re: The Psychology of Responding to Crackpots"
- Previous message: Poker Joker: "Re: How to prove the resolution method in propositional logic is complete ?"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: Alan Turing's Halting Problem is Incorrect (FINAL PART)"
- Next in thread: Peter Olcott: "Re: Alan Turing's Halting Problem is Incorrect (FINAL PART)"
- Reply: Peter Olcott: "Re: Alan Turing's Halting Problem is Incorrect (FINAL PART)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|