Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem

From: Eray Ozkural exa (erayo_at_bilkent.edu.tr)
Date: 08/02/04 

Date: 2 Aug 2004 03:23:59 -0700

"Peter Olcott" <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:<5i9Pc.366871$Gx4.34391@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> "Eray Ozkural exa" <erayo@bilkent.edu.tr> wrote in message news:fa69ae35.0408010802.4ad5b27b@posting.google.com...
> > "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message news:<AuZOc.363583$Gx4.224797@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
>
> > > Ah so pointing out any errors that I have made in an objective
> > > way, without resorting to disdain is not reasonable? So far it
> > > seems I am mostly only getting disdain. I am not getting any
> > > valid refutations.
> >
> > To prove my point, I'll answer you.
> >
> > What is the probability that all of the computer scientists who
> > responded to you have a poorer understanding of the problem than
> > yourself? (Hint: assume that there are 10 people who responded to you
> > independently)
>
> I will answer that question with another question.
> What is the probability that the ad verecundiam fallacy is not an error of reasoning?
> http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?AdVerecundiam

Thanks for making my point.

You didn't read that page, did you?

The page says that argument from authority is:

----------------------------------------------------

Sometimes correct, because:

* X may be in fact proven; or sufficiently well-demonstrated that it
is near-universally regarded as fact. (Then you point to the study)

* Expert community may in fact agree that X is true.

----------------------------------------------------

Note that this is exactly the case with your argument here, and the
responses that have been given to you.

BTW, my question does not really use argument from authority (in an
unreliable way). It uses an argument of knowledge coupled with a
community argument.

I'll make it easier for you. What is the probability that one of the
computer scientists who responded to you have a poorer understanding
of the halting problem than your royal self? %100 %90? %80? %70? %60?
%50? Pick one. (All of these choices are optimistic for you)

After your potential reply or your silent approval, it will be
established that there is no need to respond to you any further.

Cheers, 

--
Eray Ozkural

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem
    ... > What is the probability that the ad verecundiam fallacy is not an error of reasoning? ... * Expert community may in fact agree that X is true. ... responses that have been given to you. ... computer scientists who responded to you have a poorer understanding ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem
    ... > What is the probability that the ad verecundiam fallacy is not an error of reasoning? ... * Expert community may in fact agree that X is true. ... responses that have been given to you. ... computer scientists who responded to you have a poorer understanding ...
    (comp.lang.cpp)
  • Re: So called "stimulus/response" models
    ... Instead of answering to each misunderstood, ironic and out of context ... Sorry, you exhibit a simplistic view of probability theory, and an even more ... of acquiring the consequences of responses. ... distribution over consequences of a given act. ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: So called "stimulus/response" models
    ... claiming that all learning is operant conditioning. ... of acquiring the consequences of responses. ... distribution over consequences of a given act. ... Sorry, you exhibit a simplistic view of probability theory, and an even more ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)
  • Re: Possible F77 Code Improvement ??
    ... standard references fall down badly, because computer scientists ... that is strictly Owith probability one. ... I can't understand fully what your post is saying. ...
    (comp.lang.fortran)