Re: Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the Halting Problem?

From: G. Frege (no_spam_at_aol.com)
Date: 07/12/04 

Date: Mon, 12 Jul 2004 05:48:58 +0200

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 03:15:19 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
<olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>>>
>>> I never claimed that my solution would work if you didn't use it.
>>> You have to use it for it to work.
>>>
>> Please PROVE that it works!
>>
> I already did this in another post to you.
>
Sorry, you didn't do that. (Well, it may be that you _think_ that you
did this. That's another story.)

>
> It might take some study to get it.
>
Study WHAT?! :-o There i s nothing to study, man.

Well, of course there are your claims... But, frankly, they aren't that
impressing. :-)

>
> Here is the basic structure of the proof:
> (1) The original Halting Problem proof depends on the
> LoopIfHalts() function.
>
Right. :-)

>
> (2) I make the LoopIfHalts() function impossible to construct **
>
How could you do that? :-o

>
> By making access to the meaning of the results returned
> by the WillHalt() function inaccessible to the LoopIfHalts()
> function, the LoopIfHalts() function is unable to "loop if
> halts".
>

Sure. But IF there IS a WillHalt() function (which can etc. etc) we can
ALSO CONSTRUCT a WillHalt'() function (which can etc. etc) THAT SUPLIES
its result (which is the same result WillHalt() DETERMINES, since both
functions share that cricial code) to the LoopIfHalts() program.

>
> (3) The original proof fails because its basis has been removed.
>
I just PROVED (several times already) that the mentioned argument STILL
goes trough. You c a n't effectively remove its basis.

        EITHER there is some code snippet which CAN DETERMINE
        for every given program X and any input I if P halts
        on input I (or not) OR NOT.

F.

Relevant Pages