Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C++ > Refutation of the DisProof of the Halting Problem

Reply
Thread Tools

Refutation of the DisProof of the Halting Problem

 
 
Robert Low
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2004

Peter Olcott <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>is incorrect. This by itself is an amazing feat. No one has even
>questioned this proof for 68 years. They all accept it as fact.


You don't have much idea of what 'reading a proof' entails,
do you? You go in waiting to be persuaded, and when you've
finished reading it you understand why it's correct. That's
kind of the point of proofs, you see.

>I can't proof that a program can be written to determine if every other
>program halts.


Correct. (Because no such program can exist.)

> I can show the the proof that this can not be done
>is incorrect.


Incorrect. There are various correct proofs that the
halting problem is unsolvable available in undergraduate
text books. In fact, it's not even clear to me just
*which* proof you claim to be incorrect; I saw at least
one correct proof posted in response to you.
--
Rob. http://www.mis.coventry.ac.uk/~mtx014/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Anonymous
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2004
You got it Peter! Very good!

"Peter Olcott" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:SXSMc.134873$(E-Mail Removed)...
> The Halting Problem can not be solved within the degree of
> expressability of a TM. My solution only worked because of
> its more limited degree of expressability.
>
> There is no such thing as a void function in a TM, thus there is
> no way to make constructing the counter-example program
> impossible for a TM.
>
>
>
>



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bryan Olson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2004
Peter Olcott wrote:
> It is a very surprising turn of events. There was one message
> That I read this morning that got me thinking. After I thought
> about it I realized that my solution would not apply to Turing
> Machines. Not that my solution required something more than
> a Turing Machine, but something less.


That much is right. A model of computation *less* powerful than
Turing's may admit a program that decides the model's halting
problem. Halting is undecidable in any programming language that
is 'complete' in the sense of the Church-Turing thesis.


--
--Bryan
 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter Olcott
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2004

"Bryan Olson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
> Peter Olcott wrote:
> > It is a very surprising turn of events. There was one message
> > That I read this morning that got me thinking. After I thought
> > about it I realized that my solution would not apply to Turing
> > Machines. Not that my solution required something more than
> > a Turing Machine, but something less.

>
> That much is right. A model of computation *less* powerful than
> Turing's may admit a program that decides the model's halting
> problem. Halting is undecidable in any programming language that
> is 'complete' in the sense of the Church-Turing thesis.
>
>
> --
> --Bryan


Well on to my proof of that case.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Peter Olcott
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2004

"Anonymous" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:4HgNc.3267$(E-Mail Removed) m...
> You got it Peter! Very good!
>
> "Peter Olcott" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:SXSMc.134873$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > The Halting Problem can not be solved within the degree of
> > expressability of a TM. My solution only worked because of
> > its more limited degree of expressability.
> >
> > There is no such thing as a void function in a TM, thus there is
> > no way to make constructing the counter-example program
> > impossible for a TM.
> >

Except that I have now figured out how to solve it for Turing Machines
with a Turing Machine. See my newest thread.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Kent Paul Dolan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2004
"Peter Olcott" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Well on to my proof of that case.


Why bother? No one cares about that case.

xanthian.



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
 
Reply With Quote
 
Kent Paul Dolan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2004
"Peter Olcott" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Except that I have now figured out how to solve it
> for Turing Machines with a Turing Machine. See my
> newest thread.


No, you didn't, and just as in the case of your
former bogus proof, no one needs to look at your
current bogus proof to know otherwise.

I'm sure you will spend another month or so calling
all the people who understand what it means that the
task you are claiming to have accomplished, has been
proved to be impossible to accomplish, nasty names
for trusting that entirely lucid, easily understood
proof over your obfuscated muddle of a non-proof,
again.

You'll eventually find out you are wrong, again.

You'll have learned nothing, as you learned nothing
this time, and set off down the same barricaded
path, again, no doubt.

That's why what you have is called "INVINCIBLE
ignorance"; nothing short of death can cure it.

xanthian.




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Herring
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2004
In message <HtZMc.136094$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Peter Olcott <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>
>"Jonathan Turkanis" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> "Peter Olcott" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:SXSMc.134873$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > The Halting Problem can not be solved within the degree of
>> > expressability of a TM. My solution only worked because of
>> > its more limited degree of expressability.
>> >
>> > There is no such thing as a void function in a TM, thus there is
>> > no way to make constructing the counter-example program
>> > impossible for a TM.

>>
>> I think I already asked you to stop posting this stuff, but you appear
>> to have a halting problem.
>>

>
>Well it looks like I am wrong that I am wrong again.
>This time I won't bother with anything less than a full
>refutation of the original proof. I do have a basis for
>disproving the original proof.
>
>

Do you know James Harris?

--
Richard Herring
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andrew Koenig
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2004
"Bryan Olson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) m...
> Peter Olcott wrote:
> > It is a very surprising turn of events. There was one message
> > That I read this morning that got me thinking. After I thought
> > about it I realized that my solution would not apply to Turing
> > Machines. Not that my solution required something more than
> > a Turing Machine, but something less.

>
> That much is right. A model of computation *less* powerful than
> Turing's may admit a program that decides the model's halting
> problem. Halting is undecidable in any programming language that
> is 'complete' in the sense of the Church-Turing thesis.


Moreover, a language that admits a program that decides the halting problem
cannot be powerful enough to program its own interpreter.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Andrew Koenig
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-27-2004
"Peter Olcott" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:5%iNc.332300$(E-Mail Removed)...

> > That much is right. A model of computation *less* powerful than
> > Turing's may admit a program that decides the model's halting
> > problem. Halting is undecidable in any programming language that
> > is 'complete' in the sense of the Church-Turing thesis.


> Well on to my proof of that case.


The trouble is that a computational model that is restricted enough to allow
the halting problem to be proved is not very useful. In particular, any
programming language that conforms to such a computational model cannot be
strong enough to program an interpreter for its own language.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The halting problem revisited Roedy Green Java 76 04-05-2011 12:36 AM
GetTransferData() works only after halting over a breakpoint dushkin Java 0 04-23-2006 03:40 PM
Re: Yet another Attempt at Disproving the Halting Problem Peter Olcott C++ 245 08-21-2004 04:48 PM
Re: Halting Problem: Give up >parr\(*> C++ 10 08-16-2004 10:18 PM
Solution to the halting Problem? Peter Olcott C++ 117 08-10-2004 09:39 PM



Advertisments