Re: Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the Halting Problem?

From: >parr\(*> (KurlyGina_at_tenretnitb.moc)
Date: 07/25/04 

Date: Sun, 25 Jul 2004 05:31:10 +0000 (UTC)

"Peter Olcott" <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:nuFMc.132734$OB3.127510@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
|
| ">parr(*>" <KurlyGina@tenretnitb.moc> wrote in message
news:cdv4j8$s55$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
| >
| > Thank you for that. Although it it certainly seems like you are
| > claiming so by using the phrase 'this solution'.
|
| The Halting Problem is a very specific case. It is correct for me
to
| use the term solution, because of the nature of the very specific
| details of exactly how the Halting Problem is defined.

I'm afraid I don't understand. I am not alone in this, so perhaps
you need to formalise your 'refutation'. You have already accepted
that you haven't prooved possibility by your faulty
    "Structure of Original Proof---->Y makes X impossible
    Structure of This Proof--------->Z makes Y impossible"
idea. Perhaps a start would be to tidy that bit up.

| Not quite correct. The whole problem that made the original problem
| a problem in the first place is that it does not always derive
exactly
| two results. If it did always derive exactly two results, then it
would
| have never presented a problem.

I suggest you reread the original Turing proof. He proved his
assumption was false because at least one TM would cause the TM to
fail in its task. You are saying the same thing. However, because
you have changed the definition of the machine, you have a different
problem now.

Suppose I were to claim that I have determined that the angles of a
triangle do not add up to 180 degrees. This is something first
proved by the ancient Greeks with the proof (based on accepted
axioms) written up in Euclid's Geomety. I claim that I have measured
them, and I produce my results. [This experiment has actually been
done BTW. A large triangle was laid out on the Earth and the angles
measured and found not to be 180 degrees.]

Despite this, I cannot say I have disproved Euclid's theorem. The
reason is that by putting my triangle on a curved Earth, I have
changed the problem from one of planar geometry to one of spherical
geometry. I've changed the axioms. I have also determined that the
Earth is not flat.

And so, though you do not realise it, you may have ingeniously
created a new problem, maybe even identified a new class of machine.

But until you formalise it, no one will take any serious notice of
it.

| I am not just rejecting the input as invalid merely because it
presents
| a problem to my halt analyzer. Its stronger than that. The compiler
| would also reject this program as ill-formed syntactically. In
other
| words it is not in the set of possible programs.

The phrase you use is 'any arbitrary program'. Perhaps that needs to
be changed.

| >
| > Then perhaps you could take Turing's original statement and proof
and
| > point out which line or lines are in error.
|
| His original looks nothing at all like these simplifications that
| are comprehensible by far more people.

You have a computer science degree, most others here have computer
science degrees or maths degrees. If you want to be taken seriously,
I suggest you do the hard work needed to pinpoint the error in his
proof, which line or lines. Believe me, if you are right, we will
understand, most of us will eat humble pie. 

--
)>==ss$$%PARR(º>   Parr

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Can you find anything wrong with this solution to the Halting Problem?
    ... A large triangle was laid out on the Earth and the angles ... changed the problem from one of planar geometry to one of spherical ... I've changed the axioms. ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Kook warning, Oriel36
    ... You also want to see nothing except your variations of orbital motion. ... > cosmological structure and motion from our point of view on Earth. ... >> have to lead astronomers to study the cause of path deviation. ... > The ice ages most certainly do rely on geometry Sergev for in an ice ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • Re: Oriel -- Let me get your opinion
    ... speak the geometric language of astronomy then don;'t bother replying. ... So tell us how you would chart a course from the earth to the moon (or ... direction or velocity relying on 'geometry' and 'modern imaging' to take ... just overtaken Jupiter at it closest point with the luminosity at its ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
  • Re: Spherical Triangle
    ... this is all what I would expect a calculator program to do. ... could perhaps need a side greater than 180 but the smaller triangle ... For problems involving the surface of the earth, ... Finally I solved for c using the cos rule. ...
    (comp.sys.hp48)
  • Re: A challenge to non-SRians
    ... geometry, and the geometry of the manifold simply _IS_, and does not ... bending of light's path near the sun is simply the fact that the null ... Meanwhile the Earth travelling at 30 km/s ... the conclusion is that the radial vector force of gravity ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)