Re: [PO] Can a regular Turing Machine provide Protected Memory?

From: Peter Olcott (olcott_at_worldnet.att.net)
Date: 09/01/04 

Date: Wed, 01 Sep 2004 09:18:26 GMT

"Jym" <moyen@loria.fr> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.51.0408310048230.28737@repaix.loria.fr...
> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004, Peter Olcott wrote:
>
> > Likewise with what you are saying. Why don't you join in
> > the refutation developed by newstome@comcast.net?
>
> Because he already said almost everything that has to be said for refuting
> your screen TMs. Did you finally read the message you've printed sunday?

I have been reading it again and again for several days now.
Since I accept that his claim that he is a PhD computer science
professor, I gave it the highest possible weight.

> > You only have to derive an example of data that one
> > model of my methods can not possibly process. Read
>
> No, we only have to provide a way of building an unprocessable input from
> any suposedly correct halt analyser. As you don't really provide a halt
> analyser (for obvious reason), the unprocessable input is not necessarly
> unique. And the same inout can very well be correctly processed on one
> halt analyser and not on another. (and if one halt analyser does exist,
> then infinitely many of them do exist, just add any number of useles
> states in the beginning (going from u0 to u1 without moving and without
> changing the tape and finally to uk to h0 the "true" initial state)).
>
> Anyway, newstome has briantly provided such a construction and maybe it
> would be wiser for us not to respond to your messages until you have
> responded to his.

I just tentatively refuted his response.

> > the prior postings between him and me for the details.
>
> Hypocoristiquement,
> Jym.

Relevant Pages