Re: Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the Halting Problem?
From: Sander Bruggink (bruggink.at.phil.uu.nl_at_no.spam.please)
Date: 07/14/04
- Next message: |-|erc: "Re: Groupthink"
- Previous message: Still_lying_about_Marty: "Re: Newly classified files confirm US collaboration with Nazis"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the Halting Problem?"
- Next in thread: Chris Menzel: "Re: Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the Halting Problem?"
- Reply: Chris Menzel: "Re: Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the Halting Problem?"
- Reply: Peter Olcott: "Re: Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the Halting Problem?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 11:16:21 +0200
Peter Olcott wrote:
> "Sander Bruggink" <bruggink.at.phil.uu.nl@no.spam.please> wrote in message news:cd0ine$fna$1@husserl.admin.phil.uu.nl...
>>Right. Notice how you talk about *programs*.
>
> The meaning is essentially the same.
Uh... no! The words "hardware" and "software" have distinct meanings.
And a program is software. And a non-pseudo random number generator is
hardware.
> The original claim was only made within the context of Turing
> Machines because at the time (and apparently still to this day)
> they are considered to be the most generally applicable universal
> model of computation.
Uh... no! One detail: they are considered to be *a* most general model
of computation. There are others: lambda calculus, term rewriting
systems, recursive functions, etc., all proven to be equivalent in
computing power to Turing Machines.
If I can show a way to circumvent the
> original proof's mechanism, and there is no other way than
> a method that can not be implemented as a Turing Machine,
> then not only have I successfully refuted the Halting Problem
> proof,
No, you haven't. Because your method cannot be implemented as a Turing
Machine.
> but also the Church-Turing thesis.
The Church-Turing thesis is just that: a thesis. Note how it is not
called: "The Church-Turing Theorem" or something.
> A fellow programmer where I work said that he thought that
> I could win the Turing prize for this. Wouldn't that be ironic?
That would be very ironic, indeed. Also, it would be highly improbable.
I noticed that you (again) snipped the part of my post to which you had
no answer. Here it is again:
"O, btw, let's assume that using a non-pseudo number generator is
possible. Of course de WillHalt function is not the only function which
may use that, right? Well, then it will fail to determine, in about 50%
of the cases, whether the following program halts:
function HaltOrNot {
if (random() >= .5) then while (true);
else return;
}"
Note how I use *your* *own* *stupid* *rules* to refute you.
groente
-- Sander
- Next message: |-|erc: "Re: Groupthink"
- Previous message: Still_lying_about_Marty: "Re: Newly classified files confirm US collaboration with Nazis"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the Halting Problem?"
- Next in thread: Chris Menzel: "Re: Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the Halting Problem?"
- Reply: Chris Menzel: "Re: Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the Halting Problem?"
- Reply: Peter Olcott: "Re: Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the Halting Problem?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|