Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website
newstome_at_comcast.net
Date: 08/10/04
- Next message: Simon G Best: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- Previous message: Will Twentyman: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Next in thread: Peter Olcott: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Reply: Peter Olcott: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 15:21:48 GMT
In comp.theory Peter Olcott <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> <newstome@comcast.net> wrote in message news:oUWRc.229589$a24.164871@attbi_s03...
>> In comp.theory Peter Olcott <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>
>> And as been explained to you many times, this is where you're wrong.
>> If a TM can compute the correct result, and supply that correct result
>> to anyone, anyhow (write-once tape, write-only screen, beeping it out
>> in morse code through a sound card -- I don't care how), then there's
>> also a TM that can compute the correct result and return it. Since
>> that second part (with returning the result) is impossible for the
>> halting problem, so is the first part (with returning it in some
>> secret, newfangled way).
>
> ICFANV Incorrect Reasoning based on a False Assumption thatis Never
> Validated.
>
> The TM that returns its result to write only screen memory has an
> entirely different execution trace than the exact same TM the returns
> its result to the TM being analyzed for this specific Halting Problem.
Wrong again. A TM that returns its result to "write only screen
memory" has absolutely NO difference in execution trace from that same
program run under a simulator of such a machine, executing on a
machine without such a "write only screen memory." No difference at
all. Exactly the same "execution trace". It's impossible for the
program to tell the difference. And in the simulator, I can easily
capture the output to the "write only screen memory" and do whatever I
want to with it.
> LoopIfHalts does not "loop if halts" it only loops if you tell it that
> it halts. If you don't tell it that it halts, then it does not loop. If you
> tell someone else (write only screen memory) and do not tell it, then
> it halts. Whenever you tell it that it halts, it loops. So not telling it
> and telling someone else, has an entirely different effect than telling
> it, and not telling someone else.
Unfortunately for your argument, you simply can't tell if it has been
told to someone else or not.
> Since its behavior is changed when you tell it that it halts, as compared
> to not telling it (and telling the write only screen memory) therefore the
> analysis is also changed. Only by returning the result to the program being
> analyzed is the Halting Problem indeterminate. If you simply refrain from
> telling the program being analyzed any of the results of the analysis, what
> was indeterminate becomes determinate.
Since there's no actual difference between returning the result to the
caller or sending it to "write once screen memory", your code for the
halting problem with either work in both cases, or fail in both
cases. And in fact, it will fail in both cases.
-- That's News To Me! newstome@comcast.net
- Next message: Simon G Best: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- Previous message: Will Twentyman: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Next in thread: Peter Olcott: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Reply: Peter Olcott: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
