Re: Can returning a value change the value itself (in the Halting Problem)

From: George Greene (greeneg_at_greeneg-cs.cs.unc.edu)
Date: 08/15/04 

Date: 15 Aug 2004 15:54:05 -0400

"Peter Olcott" <olcott@worldnet.att.net> writes:
 : Many of the attempts at refuting my refutation of the Halting Problem
 : implicitly assumed that the answer to this question is no.

We do NOT "implicitly assume"
that the answer is no.
We KNOW that the QUESTION is BULL***!

Turing machines DO NOT "return values" to "their callers"!
It is YOUR assumption that THAT happens that is false!

 : They try to prove that my refutation is wrong by making this false assumption.

We ARE NOT making ANY assumptions, DIP***.
WE are just USING THE DEFINITION of WHAT A TM is, something
that YOU TO THIS DAY do NOT understand.

 : Instead of keeping this false assumption hidden under the cover of
 : rhetoric, let's analyze it explicitly.
 :
 : The goal of this thread is to analyze each and every step exactly
 : one step at a time until this question has final resolution that most
 : everyone can agree to.

No, it isn't. The goal of all these threads is for you to
a) first, understand some basic logic
b) understand what abstraction is, and
c) understand what a Turing Machine is.

Everything you call " the original proof "
or "analyzing every step" of the proof is just
irrelevant bull***, because YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND the proof,
because you don't understand what logic is and you don't understand
what a TM is. And all of those questions are far too basic
for comp.theory, to which you should stop posting immediately. 

-- 
 --- The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.
 --- (Feb.3,2004) Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts (4-3), adv.Sen.#2175