Re: Disproof of the Halting Problem's Conclusion

From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 07/24/04 

Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 15:58:09 GMT

"Chris Menzel" <cmenzel@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote in message news:slrncfvdo9.eu.cmenzel@philebus.tamu.edu...
> 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.

No it is not. This might be the only case where the form
of the output actually changes the value of the output.
http://home.att.net/~olcott/halting/index.html#objection03
Please do not form your refutation before reading the above
link. I have done all that I can to make it as easy as possible.

> I'm *sure* he'll get it this time, Daryl! ;-)
>

Relevant Pages