Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem
From: Eray Ozkural exa (erayo_at_bilkent.edu.tr)
Date: 08/02/04
- Next message: Robert Low: "Re: Why should -1 multiplied by -1 be plus 1 and not -1"
- Previous message: >parr\(*>: "Re: Foundation for a Formal Refutation of the Original Halting Problem?"
- In reply to: Mitch Harris: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Next in thread: Peter Olcott: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Reply: Peter Olcott: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 2 Aug 2004 10:54:48 -0700
Mitch Harris <harrisq@tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de> wrote in message news:<2n6luoFt3btpU1@uni-berlin.de>...
> Eray Ozkural exa wrote:
> > If we assume that the probability one computer scientist has poorer
> > understanding of the halting problem than Peter is 0.7, then for 10
> > people, it becomes about 0.282, around 3%, for 10 independent
> > responses. :) Not a very high probability, but I think in reality it
> > is much less than that...
>
> But if all these responses are dependent, which they may
> very well be if guided by GroupThink (tm) or appeal to a
> single original erroneous original (Turing), then we're all
> wrong.
Oh, yes, I think we have formalized Peter's ideas about scientific
enterprise by now: it's near impossible for new theories to emerge
except when a genius like Peter demonstrates that we've gotten just
about everything wrong.
Cheers,
-- Eray Ozkural
- Next message: Robert Low: "Re: Why should -1 multiplied by -1 be plus 1 and not -1"
- Previous message: >parr\(*>: "Re: Foundation for a Formal Refutation of the Original Halting Problem?"
- In reply to: Mitch Harris: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Next in thread: Peter Olcott: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Reply: Peter Olcott: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|