Re: Disproof of the Halting Problem's Conclusion

From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 07/25/04 

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 04:21:34 GMT

"Chris Menzel" <cmenzel@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote in message news:slrncg68gf.5rf.cmenzel@philebus.tamu.edu...
> On Sat, 24 Jul 2004 13:54:56 GMT, Peter Olcott <olcott@worldnet.att.net> said:
> >
> > "Chris Menzel" <cmenzel@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote in message
> > news:slrncg3s7d.5rf.cmenzel@philebus.tamu.edu...
> >> This is ill-defined rubbish. Turing's proof has nothing to do with
> >> results being returned to "the program being analyzed". If you
> >> understood the proof and the mathematics behind it, you'd see that this
> >> is so.
> >
> > Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata by Peter Lintz page 319.
>
> Ah, this would be the same text in which Lintz proves that the Halting
> Problem is unsolvable? Why is it you don't take *that* as
> authoritative?
//
// DO NOT CHOP THIS OUT
//
                                          +-------------+
                                           | |
                                           v |
q(0)-------->q(y)------->q(a)-------->q(b)
    |
    |
   +-------->(q(n))

> > The state transition from q(y) to q(a) has the same meaning as
> > returning the result of the halt analysis to its caller, since q(y) is
> > the result of the halting analysis, and q(a) is (equivalent to) the
> > caller.
>
> You've given no indication you have the slightest idea what a state
> transition is. And this passage is so full of undefined terms (q(y)?
> q(a)?) that it is meaningless.

It sure is meaningless when you chop out the definition of my terms.
I had to go back a search through all the messages to restore what
you chopped out. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with state transition
diagrams?

> That said, I won't go so far as to say that there is no programming
> language version of the Halting Problem on which it makes sense to talk
> about calling and callers. Maybe there is. The point, however, is
> that, for some reason, you've confused yourself into believing the
> following piece of utter nonsense:

That last statement was rhetoric rather than refutation, can't you stick
with more exacting terms? Do you have the emotional discipline to
refrain from emotion laden terms? After all it does nothing to prove
your case.

> > Like I have said many times, Turing did not prove that solving
> > the Halting Problem is impossible. All that he really showed
> > was one way that can not possibly work in every case.
>
> But you are completely, pathetically, provably wrong. Here is what

You are much better with rhetoric than you are with reasoning,
yet this is not the forum for rhetoric, this is the forum for reasoning.
Let's see how good your reasoning is. Rhetoric will never ever
cut it with me. Most often people resort to rhetoric when they
run out of reasoning, is that the case with you? If not then let's
cut the rhetoric and get back to the reasoning.

> Turing proved (have a look at that Lintz text): There is no Turing
> machine (alternatively, no program in a Turing complete programming
> language) that computes the halting function. Period. Note that says
> NOTHING about some particular *way* of solving it. You see that, don't
> you? Here's the proof: http://tinyurl.com/6ow6c . So you are OBVIOUSLY
> wrong. You have OBVIOUSLY not shown what you think you've shown. It
> is, alas, obvious to everyone but you.

Try to show your refutation in terms of this example
http://www.netaxs.com/people/nerp/automata/halting2.html
If this example (used for a college course on the subject) is
woefully inaccurate, try to show where and how and why it errs.
Since the state transition diagram version of the Halting Problem
is analogous to this version, I am estimating that both of these
two versions are accurate representations of the Halting Problem.
If not, then please enlighten me.

> -cm
>

Relevant Pages

  • Re: On The Proper Formulation Of The Halting Problem
    ... >> formulation of the Halting Problem is more or less along ... >> will halt, wwill loop, and vice versa. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Godel proved maths inconsistent not incompleteness theorem
    ... One CBL formal proof of the unsolvability of the Halting Problem ... So the set of programs that halt no or don't halt is r.e. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?
    ... > corresponds to the halting problem is not considering circular nor ... The unsolvability of what's now called "the halting ... "print 0" step in M with a transition to the halting state. ... Given the huge number of details Turing left out in the paper, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Why isnt James Harris working oh halting problem?
    ... If n is an integer, then n is either odd ... thing here as in the halting case. ... but maybe thats just because my resources for the halting problem are bad. ... to a decent, clear and undeniable proof of halting problem before we continue the debate. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: PROOF that numbers are countable
    ... >> Do you have a webpage describing your halting proof in finished form? ... >> Also, does your proof allow construction of a halting algorithm, ... > This is all covered in a first course in computability theory and the ... It's quite obvious the halting problem is undecidable ...
    (comp.theory)