Re: Can the 'Turing Problem' be deflated?

J Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx> writes:

"The TM either halts or does not engage in computation."

That should suffice. The statement is analytic - its proof is
self-evident.

You are just adorable!

But I'm a bit unsure how to understand this brilliant new analysis.
According to the insight you've provided, the Halting problem:

(a) is not a problem at all.
(b) is solved.
(c) is ill-posed.
(d) is self-evident.

Much thanks for a prompt reply, so that I can keep score here at home.

--
Jesse F. Hughes
"I have put all the information that you need at [a Yahoo! group] where
you'll notice a significantly better signal to noise ratio, as I'm
just about the only person posting." -- James S. Harris on noise
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Can the Turing Problem be deflated?
    ... is self-evident. ... IF Turing wants to address a particular problem, THEN it may be the case that the way he tackles it through the 'halting problem' doesn't actually address it. ... So "The Turing Problem MAY be a problem", but IF it is a problem, THEN the problem is not addressed in the form in which it is cast in the halting problem. ... There are grades of nonsense, but I can't find that paper, and its bed-time. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Response to Karen and to Willem on recursive proofs
    ... I thought it would be self-evident that I ... was describing the Halting Problem: ... )> otherwise I can simply prove that the loop doesn't terminate. ... You all think I'm paranoid, ...
    (comp.programming)