Re: Disproof of the Halting Problem's Conclusion

From: David C. Ullrich (ullrich_at_math.okstate.edu)
Date: 07/22/04 

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:37:52 -0500

On 22 Jul 2004 12:46:01 GMT, Chris Menzel
<cmenzel@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:

>On 22 Jul 2004 05:17:22 -0700, Daryl McCullough <daryl@atc-nycorp.com>
>said:
>> Peter Olcott says...
>>
>> >It ONLY proves that bool WillHalt() does not exist.
>> >It proves NOTHING about void WillHalt().
>>
>> There are two possibilities here: (1) Your hypothetical
>> void WillHalt can be simulated by a Turing Machine, or
>> (2) It can't.
>>
>> In case (1), your program has no relevance to
>> Turing's proof, since he was proving that no *Turing*
>> machine program can solve the halting problem. In
>> case (2), your program fails; it can't solve
>> the halting problem any better than bool WillHalt() can.
>>
>> The key point, which I would think you would understand
>> as a computer programmer, is this:
>>
>> If there is a program P1 that sends its outputs to the screen,
>> then there is a modified program P2 that returns its outputs as a
>> return value.
>>
>> Exactly *how* you make your outputs is irrelevant.
>
>I'm *sure* he'll get it this time, Daryl! ;-)

You really think so? heh-heh.

************************

David C. Ullrich

Relevant Pages