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

From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 08/19/04 

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:27:16 GMT

"wgempel" <wgempel@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:d6b61672.0408180940.2a041d24@posting.google.com...
> The key point you seem to be missing is that there is no "calling"

> In any event LOOPIFHALT would have the desired properties just by not
> including the sections of HALT that implement these measures. You
> haven't even come up with measures which influence the output of HALT.
> They are simply extraneous code that can be removed in the
> construction of LOOPIFHALT.
>
> To be even more clear:
>
> There is no mechanism for constructing HALT which can prevent the
> construction of LOOPIFHALT. We could play intricate games of
> extending the model and then trying to find the correct counterploys,
> but it would be a waste of time. Unless you wish to dispute the
> Church-Turing Thesis, you should recognize that no modification of the
> TM model will help.

It seems that you are merely yet another one of the dozen's of people
that just don't quite get the idea of proving a negative. You must not
merely derive a means whereby Halt can be thwarted. You must
derive the reasoning to show that halt can not exist.

In other words you must show that halt can not possibly avoid
being thwarted by any means what-so-ever. I only have to prove
that it can work in one case. You must show that it is impossible
in each and every case.

Relevant Pages
Quantcast