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

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

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:55:45 GMT

"Will Twentyman" <wtwentyman@read.my.sig> wrote in message news:4124015b$1_3@newsfeed.slurp.net...
> Peter Olcott wrote:

> > No you don't understand it. That K can be equivalent to H has
> > always been used to disprove the solvability of the Halting Problem.
> > In the case of my method it is 100% completely impossible to
> > make K equivalent to H. Since this is now impossible the same
> > old proof that has worked for sixty eight years suddenly stops
> > working. Until you fully understand the above paragraph, you
> > will never understand what I am saying.
>
> How can you have K that cannot have an equivalent H?

The same way that tom_usenet showed a factorial program that
did not return a result, and thereby got the wrong answer. My
case is the opposite returning the result creates the wrong answer,
refraining from returning the result produces the correct answer.

Simply by changing the return value protocol to otherwise
identical programs that have identical data, makes them
no longer equivalent.

So the whole proof by contradiction falls through:

A--->B
~B therefore ~A

It does not work when ~(A--->B)
It is now ~(A--->B)
thus ~B says nothing at all about A

>
> --
> Will Twentyman
> email: wtwentyman at copper dot net
>