Re: A little knowledge is a dangerous thing - THE HALTING PROOF


HERC777 wrote:

> The fact the UTM scares you,

UTMs don't scare me.
They do, however, confuse YOU.
I know what a UTM is.
YOU DON'T.

> its dataset has OPTIONAL DATA TYPE

DIP***: ALL TMs have ONE datatype:
FINITE STRING over a FINITE ALPHABET.
But your own sheer stupidity has never
slowed you down, has it.

> means you NEVER BOTHERED TO INVESTIGATE
> the set of outputs of all
> programs.

Neither have you, moron. That set is WAY
too big for YOU to have EVER said anything
coherent about it. More to the point,
TMs DON'T REALLY HAVE outputs in ANY case.
THEY JUST either HALT OR NOT. "I HALTED"
is ALL the output ANY TM EVER has or needs!
There are conventions for allowing string
outputs but THEY ARE NOT NECESSARY; ONE COULD,
in a pinch, get by without them.

> McCarthy invented LISP you moron,

Bitch, please.
Just because Godel didn't CALL it LISP and
didn't spell it with lots of irritating single
parentheses does NOT mean it was not HIGHLY akin
to a functional programming language.
Godel had to define new functions and define even
NEWER functions built-up-out-of-them ALL OVER THE
PLACE in that proof. It was a functional programing
tour-de-force. You don't have to take my word for it:
YOU COULD ASK MCCARTHY.

> with the very idea of hand coding a
> UTM like Eval function, then every other
> function they had been working
> on could just be parsed in from a library,

Desigining your top-level as a read-eval-print
loop is NOT the same as inventing a language
for specifying functions and functional programs.
What you are talking about there is the invention
of a Lisp interpreter, NOT of the programming language.

.