Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website
From: Chris Menzel (cmenzel_at_remove-this.tamu.edu)
Date: 08/13/04
- Next message: Kenneth Doyle: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- Previous message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Next in thread: Tim Peters: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Reply: Tim Peters: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Reply: G. Frege: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 13 Aug 2004 02:09:25 GMT
On Fri, 13 Aug 2004 00:16:12 GMT, Peter Olcott <olcott@worldnet.att.net> said:
>
> "Chris Menzel" <cmenzel@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote in message news:slrnchn8rf.oh1.cmenzel@philebus.tamu.edu...
>> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 12:09:50 GMT, Peter Olcott <olcott@worldnet.att.net>
>> said:
>> > ...I have shown that the purely mathematical approach sometimes
>> > ignore crucial details that could have be applied to solving a problem.
>>
>> Sorry, no. You've only shown that you haven't the least comprehension
>> of what the "mathematical approach" shows. In fact, you've got it
>> exactly backwards: The "applied" approach to the Halting Problem
>> (which, rigorously worked out, is really no less mathematical than the
>> "mathematical approach") that uses a Turing complete production
>> programming language instead of the simple stripped down language of
>> TMs is the one that adds details -- details that have you horribly
>> confused. If you understood the elementary proof of the "mathematical
>> approach", you'd realize these details are utterly superfluous.
>>
>> > Specifically because these details are ignored, a solution is PRESUMED
>> > to be impossible.
>>
>> Sorry, no. A solution is SHOWN to be impossible. Alas, your inability
>> to comprehend the elementary concepts of the proof prevents you from
>> realizing this. It's quite sad, really.
>>
>> -cm
>
> I can see that you certainly carefully studied my most recent postings (NOT)
> www.halting-problem.com
> How presumptuous is it for one person to attempt to refute another,
> and never stop to see what they are saying?
There is an elementary PROOF that it is *impossible* to construct a "halt
analyzer", a proof you have repeatedly shown yourself incapable of
understanding, despite its simplicity. There is no more point to
"studying" your confused ramblings than there would be if you were
claiming to have proved there are only finitely many primes.
-cm
- Next message: Kenneth Doyle: "Re: What is the Result from Invoking this Halt Function?"
- Previous message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Next in thread: Tim Peters: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Reply: Tim Peters: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Reply: G. Frege: "Re: The proof that I was referring to is on the website"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
