Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem
From: George Greene (greeneg_at_greeneg-cs.cs.unc.edu)
Date: 07/30/04
- Next message: George Greene: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Previous message: >parr\(*>: "Re: Why should -1 multiplied by -1 be plus 1 and not -1"
- In reply to: Anonymous: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Next in thread: Chris Menzel: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 30 Jul 2004 16:08:32 -0400
"Anonymous" <anonymous@home.net> writes:
: Perhaps I'm missing your point, but it sounds like you just said we don't
: need 1, we can just get 1.
Close. We do need 1, but even if we don't have it pre-specified,
we can USUALLY still get it. You are right that we EVENTUALLY need
1. We just don't need 1 handed to us on a silver platter as a pre-
specified axiom. Being able to derive it as a lemma will suffice.
: But this is what I'm saying ... if you can get 1
: then you can conclude that f does not exist.
Sure. But saying "if we can get 1" is not saying "if we have 1"
or "we have to have 1".
: Realize that I was replying to
: Peter's comment that my method of 'corrupting' Halt by creating D could be
: used for any program ...
But it CAN; that's the whole point; your method DOES generalize.
What Peter is missing is that DOING that (adding something like
what you added) usually ISN'T *corruption*!
: I was explaining why it could NOT be used for any
: program
And I was explaining why it can.
: ... because we cannot conclude 1 for just any program.
But we CAN conclude 1 for any program that started out non-
corrupt and was "modified" in a non-corrupt way.
-- --- The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal. --- (Feb.3,2004) Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (4-3), adv.Sen.#2175
- Next message: George Greene: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Previous message: >parr\(*>: "Re: Why should -1 multiplied by -1 be plus 1 and not -1"
- In reply to: Anonymous: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Next in thread: Chris Menzel: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|