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

From: Kent Paul Dolan (xanthian_at_well.com)
Date: 08/12/04 

Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 13:31:16 +0000 (UTC)

"Peter Olcott" <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> "Donald Roby" <droby@acm.org> wrote:
>> Kent Paul Dolan <xanthian@well.com> wrote:

>>> "Peter Olcott" <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

>>>>> you keep saying you can refute this. but you
>>>>> haven't shown us the code - why is that?

>>>> www.halting-problem.com

>>> Well, no, Peter, the only valid refutation to a
>>> "does not exist" claim is producing one of the
>>> items claimed not to exist.

>> Well, no, Kent. An existence proof can also be
>> done by reduction ad absurdum rather than actual
>> construction of the item.

Not in Peter's case. If he could understand reducio
ad absurdum proofs we wouldn't be having this
discussion, would we.

>> However, Peter has produced no proof of any kind.

Well, yes, he has, and the kind of proof he has
produced is the kind called "erroneous", and he has
produced _lots_ of that kind of proof.

> Quick Summary:

> Alan Turing conclusively proved is that it is
> impossible to construct a halt analyzer that
> always returns a correct result back to the
> program being analyzed.

No, he didn't. He proved that it is impossible to
produce a halt analyzer that returns a correct
result from among the answer set "halts", "does not
halt" in finite time, full stop.

Putting such a halt analyzer inside another small
(and easily verified to be correct) snippet of code
was his proof _mechanism_, it was not "the thing he
proved".

> Since returning the result back to the program
> being analyzed is not the only way to construct a
> halt analyzer,

The problem of construction of a Halting Problem
Solver has nothing to do with "returning a result
to a program", only to do with "returning a result",
a distinction you repeatedly prove yourself
incompetent to grasp.

> his proof did not show that constructing a halt
> analyzer that works correctly for all input is
> impossible.

Well, yes, it did. You've merely tried to redefine
what a halt analyzer _is_, and then framed an
argument around this entirely other entity, but
the entirely other entity which you have defined is
of absolutely no interest to computer theory, so
you have wasted your time, and that of many others
in the process.

> I have proven this. If you don't accept this, then
> you are in denial.

No, I don't "accept this" because you have never
produced anything proving anything at all related to
a Halt Problem Solver, only to your broken version
of that conceptual entity.

> The method on my website specifically shows how to
> refute the definition of the Halting Problem
> listed below.

How sad for you that "the definition of the Halting
Problem listed below" is not the definition of the
Halting Problem, then.

> Definition of the Halting Problem

> There does not exist a Turing Machine that can
> correctly determine whether or not each and every
> element in the universal set of Turing Machines
> will execute in a finite number of steps.

That is not even vaguely close to a definition of
the Halting Problem. Perhaps if you bothered to
understand the Halting Problem, so that you were not
of the opinion that was its definition, you could
begin for the first time to make intelligent
comments about the Halting Problem?

> www.halting-problem.com

> This is a whole new proof,

No, it is the same tired nonsense tricked out in
new words, and not a "proof" any more than all the
non-proofs that preceded it.

> the only thing that remains the same is the above
> quick summary.

Which is also incorrect.

> I will be happy to explain any points that are
> unclear.

Okay, explain the point that you have tried to
overturn many well founded and famous results in the
sciences, failed miserably every single time, and
yet continue your incompetent attempts as if
learning from your failures were beyond your
capacity. Answer to any question but this one, or
answers to this one that attempt to evade the issue
or deny the facts, will be considered non-responsive
(and brand you a fool (yet again)).

xanthian, in TWOT mode. 

-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?
    ... >> done by reduction ad absurdum rather than actual ... produce a halt analyzer that returns a correct ... The problem of construction of a Halting Problem ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Attempt to Refute the Halting Problems Refutation
    ... providing three different inputs on which any halt analyzer will fail? ... If you can solve the halting problem with such a model, ... it makes no difference at all if it's encoded with a private ... But the way standard TMs are required to present their ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Attempt to Refute the Halting Problems Refutation
    ... providing three different inputs on which any halt analyzer will fail? ... If you can solve the halting problem with such a model, ... it makes no difference at all if it's encoded with a private ... But the way standard TMs are required to present their ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Basis for bypassing the Halting Problem ?
    ... No, that is not what she was saying, nor was it what I was saying. ... Like I already said, and you disagreed, it is only guessing. ... If the result of TheProgramHalts) is not Boolean, then the above example ceases to form the Halting Problem as long as the if-else has no way to definitely determine the meaning of the return value. ... It always guesses false for every Halt Analyzer return value. ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Alan Turings Halting Problem is Incorrect (FINAL PART)
    ... term "define" with respect to TMs and the halting problem. ... and the proof showed that such a construction resulted in a ... for different reasons. ... The counter-example program (the self-referential self- ...
    (sci.logic)