Re:[PO]hatling problem: quantifiers again
From: Mitch Harris (harrisq_at_tcs.inf.tu-dresden.de)
Date: 08/30/04
- Next message: Owen Jacobson: "Re: [PO] Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Previous message: Mitch Harris: "Re: [PO] halting problem: existence proofs"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Next in thread: Jym: "Re: [PO] Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 09:36:04 +0200
Peter Olcott wrote:
> <newstome@comcast.net> wrote in message news:_pmYc.110473$TI1.64967@attbi_s52...
>>In comp.theory Peter Olcott <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>All I have to do is provide a way to construct one *input* for any
>>halt analyzer such that the halt analyzer fails on that input, and
>>that shows that your halt analyzer doesn't work. That's what I've
>>done.
>
> So do it already.
> Use the case of the Halt Analyzer that only reports its results
> to the screen.
You meant to say "a" Halt analyzer, right?
-- Mitch Harris (remove q to reply)
- Next message: Owen Jacobson: "Re: [PO] Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Previous message: Mitch Harris: "Re: [PO] halting problem: existence proofs"
- In reply to: Peter Olcott: "Re: Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Next in thread: Jym: "Re: [PO] Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
