Re: Olcott is cured of CrackPottery! (Halting Problem)

From: Barb Knox (see_at_sig.below)
Date: 09/26/04 

Date: Sun, 26 Sep 2004 14:21:16 +1200

In article <3df1e59f.0409230521.8fcf09d@posting.google.com>,
 chvol@aol.com (Charlie-Boo) wrote:

>"Peter Olcott" <olcott@worldnet.att.net> wrote
>> In retrospect it was apparently me that was wrong all along.
>> Alan Turing was right, and from this I will venture to make
>> an educated guess that Kurt Gödel was also right.
>
>All of this discussion over Turing's proof that there are problems
>that can't be programmed only misses the real point. Any good
>programmer can tell you there are plenty of problems that can't be
>programmed, including many more than discovered by Turing. Such as:
>
>1. Specifications that the user refuses to evaluate or approve.
>2. Users who keep changing their minds.
>3. Incomplete or inconsistent specs.
>4. Writing a program to compose a song or critique a work of art.
>5. Writing a program that can love, hate or envy.

The halting problem is not covered by any of these -- the specification of
the desired mathematical function is clear, consistent, and complete.
Turing's significant result here is that even given such a really good spec,
the function still can not be programmed.

>These are very practical problems - when did Turing ever do anything
>useful such as address these problems?

Well let's see. He significantly helped the Allies win WW-II. He provided
an operational criterion for a program being humanly "intelligent", and
indeed is one of the founders of the whole field area of AI.

>(Or, for that matter, anyone else, aside from me.)

Your clueless arrogance is stunning, even for Usenet. Compared to Turing's
major practical impacts, what difference has your work made to anyone
anywhere?

>Come to think of it, the halting problem (and Godel's Incompleteness
>Theorem et. al.) is just a case of # 3.

Wrong. The specification of the desired mathematical function is clear,
consistent, and complete. If you could find an inconsistency or missing
case in it then THAT would be an accomplishment. But of course you can't.

And I take it you're also rubbishing Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem? What
worthwhile contribution have YOU made to mathematics, eh? Again, if you
could find an inconsistency or other hole in the GIT "specification" then
THAT would be an accomplishment. But of course you can't do that either.

>Ho hum.

    Ho hum,
    The tune is dumb,
    The words don't mean a thing.
    Isn't that
    A silly song
    For Charlie-Boo to sing? 

-- 
---------------------------
|  BBB                b    \     Barbara at LivingHistory stop co stop uk
|  B  B   aa     rrr  b     |
|  BBB   a  a   r     bbb   |    Quidquid latine dictum sit,
|  B  B  a  a   r     b  b  |    altum viditur.
|  BBB    aa a  r     bbb   |   
-----------------------------