Re: Disproof of the Halting Problem's Conclusion

From: Chris Menzel (cmenzel_at_remove-this.tamu.edu)
Date: 07/23/04 

Date: 23 Jul 2004 17:12:30 GMT

On 22 Jul 2004 20:48:12 GMT, Chris Menzel <cmenzel@remove-this.tamu.edu> said:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 00:05:33 GMT, Peter Olcott <olcott@worldnet.att.net>
> said:
> > It is not merely that I have not accepted a proof that everyone
> > else accepts. It is that my disprove of this proof has not yet
> > been found in error.
>
> Well, golly. I guess it wasn't clear to me that you thought you'd
> "disproved" the proof -- not that it's ever been clear to me what you
> think your doing. Be that as it may, if you've "disproved" the proof,
> that means you think that either an invalid inference is made at some
> point, or you think one of the premises is false. So perhaps it will be
> useful if you explicitly identify the problem in a very clear and simple
> statement of the Halting Problem. ...

You are conspicuously silent for one who claims to have "disproved" the
proof of the unsolvability of the Halting Problem, Peter. If indeed you
have, the simple exposition I provided should be ideal for setting
everyone straight and explicitly pointing out the flaw in the proof. If
you can't, then obviously, if you actually *have* shown anything, it has
nothing to do with the Halting Problem -- which is exactly what a number
of your interlocutors have claimed. (Note that's not necessarily a bad
thing -- perhaps the significance of what you've done lies elsewhere.)

Now's your chance to show the world, Peter. It's time to put up or shut
up.

Chris Menzel

Quantcast