Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem

From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 08/10/04 

Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 02:23:18 GMT

">parr(*>" <gniKyruaL@tenretnitb.moc> wrote in message news:cf8q76$2bv$4@hercules.btinternet.com...
> "Peter Olcott" <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:dLWPc.381367$Gx4.219217@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> |
> | "Eray Ozkural exa" <erayo@bilkent.edu.tr> wrote in message
> news:fa69ae35.0408030811.ef493b0@posting.google.com...
> | > Peter, you really should have a look at my post below. Do you
> know
> | > when argument from authority can be valid?
> |
> | Within deduction it is never valid.
> | Only deduction can guarantee that it always provides correct
> results. It is
> | considered to be valid inductive inference, yet inductive inference
> can not
> | guarantee correct results. Deduction can not err, induction can
> err.
>
> Peter, part of me wants to suggest you do a basic maths course and
> learn about proof by induction.

No, sorry. Mathematical induction (often used for proof of
algorithm correctness) has nothing at all in common with
inductive inference.

> However, what you posted above is off topic (that means it has
> nothing to do with Turing's proof (by diagonalisation) of his Halting
> Problem conclusion).
>
> Please get on topic.
>
> Please, at the very least, make a start and go discover the title of
> the Turing paper which you claim is in error.
>
> --
> )>==ss$$%PARR(º> Parr
>
>
>

Relevant Pages