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

From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 08/15/04 

Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2004 19:06:58 GMT

"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:un6vh0li4ht2f7rb6uti2499kkjm0veeqf@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 16:12:02 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
> <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"David C. Ullrich" <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote in message news:1svuh0hna7ca545tamjoh03gvuum0dne79@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 14:54:41 GMT, "Peter Olcott"
> >> <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >> >Proof by contradiction:
>
> [*]
> >> >A--->B
> >> >Not(B)
> >> >Therefore Not A
> >> >
> >> >This quits working when A--->B is not true.
> >>
> >> we all understand that. the fact that you think for some reason
> >> we don't -is- hilarious.
> >
> >You don't get it because you keep ASSUMING that A--->B
> >is still true in the case of my method. Could you do me (and yourself)
> >a favor, and quit assuming anything at all? I don't want this to be
> >an infinite loop, around and around, all because you guys keep
> >leaping to the wrong conclusions. Quit leaping will ya?
>
> as always, it's amazing the way you can't get anything straight.
>
> in fact of course nobody's assuming A--->B, it's been proved.

It has not been proven in the case of my method.
It has been proven for an entirrely different case, and assumed
to also apply to my method. It does not apply to my method

That A can return correct results doe not entail that B can return
correct results. I have now devoted a whole thread to just this one
subpoint.

{Can returning a value change the value itself (in the Halting Problem)}

> but that's irrelevant to the -current- hilarious confusion:
> even if it were true that we were all just assuming A--->B,
> that wouldn't show that we don't understand that [*] is how
> a proof by contradiction works. the fact that you continue to
> insist that we don't understand this really -is- one of the
> funniest aspects of all this.

Yup just as funny as a Sound Argument requires both True Premises
AND Valid Reasoning was hilarious up until it was quoted from
a textbook, and then suddenly it was not funny at all anymore.