Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?

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

Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 02:26:59 GMT

">parr(*>" <gniKyruaL@tenretnitb.moc> wrote in message news:cf8q75$2bv$3@hercules.btinternet.com...
>
> "Peter Olcott" <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> news:yYBRc.188825$OB3.183273@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> |
> | ">parr(*>" <gniKyruaL@tenretnitb.moc> wrote in message
> news:cf60i4$mm4$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
> | > That's not Turing Machine. Go and buy a Turing machine please
> and
> | > implement the Halting Function. Come back when you've proved it
> | > works.
> |
> | That is an unreasonable request. My only goal is to show that the
> | conclusion of the proof that solving the Halting Problem is
> impossible,
> | is incorrect.
>
> I can't see why it's an unreasonable request.

<sarcasm>
Count all the stars in the sky, and when you get done with this
count all the grains of sand in the world, and then one more thing
every drop of water in just the Atlantic Ocean, please make sure
that you exclude all other water. When you're done with this,
then get back to me.
</sarcasm>

I don't believe that you believe that your answer is true.
If you do believe that your answer is true, then you know
less about the Halting Problem that I have estimated that
you know.

> You have not yet pinpointed the erroneous line(s) in Turing's proof.
> Indeed, you have not yet even started to address the theoretical
> basis of it.
>
> Yet you assert creation of a halting detector is possible. In that
> case build it, test it, and demonstrate it instead of waffling on
> endlessly about possible alternatives on non-Turing machines.
>
> But if you insist it's unreasonable, that's your problem not mine.
> I'm not the one having problems understanding Turing's proof.
> --
> )>==ss$$%PARR(º> Parr
>
>
>

Relevant Pages
Loading