Re: Attempt to Refute the Halting Problem's Refutation

From: The Ghost In The Machine (ewill_at_aurigae.athghost7038suus.net)
Date: 08/25/04 

Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 08:01:08 GMT

In sci.logic, Peter Olcott
<olcott@worldnet.att.net>
 wrote
on Tue, 24 Aug 2004 03:06:17 GMT
<JgyWc.505901$Gx4.353774@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@aurigae.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:67qnv1-pgd.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
>> In sci.logic, Peter Olcott
>> <olcott@worldnet.att.net>
>> wrote
>
>> > How about I disproved every existing proof of the Undecidability
>> > of the Halting Problem?
>>
>> Since I've yet to see you deal satisfactorially with the
>> Isomorphism Issue, I fail to see how that's the case.
>
> Several people have presented cases that refuted this claim.
> I have provided my examples as 100% concrete.

Not on your website. You might have posted some interesting
stuff here, but if so, I'd have to find it.

> I didn't
> specify any vague allusions. My method determines that
> LoopIfHalt always halts. Try to address this issue with
> this degree of detail. (I even proveded a line-by-line
> execution trace of LoopIfHalts is determined to halt).

You are correct in that WillHalt has determined that LoopIfHalts halts.
But is that the correct answer?

>
> The more concrete your refutation becomes the more
> obvious that it will be that it won't work.

As opposed to the www.halting-problem.com handwaving?

Or did you slip in an implementation of WillHalt when
I wasn't looking?

>
>
>>
>> Briefly put: for any WillHalt() you allege that will
>> work on a modified TM, I can give you a provably broken
>> WillHalt() that will provably *not* work on a *standard*
>> TM. That in itself isn't much, but it's a 1-1 mapping,
>> which means the two machines will work exactly the same
>> (up to the isomorphism -- Transmogrify(), if you prefer)
>> as they process the same problem. Therefore, the original
>> WillHalt on the modified TM is equally broken.
>>
>> >
>> > Since each and every specific case takes the same form, this
>> > stronger one is still true.
>> >
>>
>> Not the way I see it.
>>
>> --
>> #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
>> It's still legal to go .sigless.
>
> 

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.

Relevant Pages