Quote:
Originally Posted by TZK
Your definition of trivial assumption needs revision badly. A trivial assumption is something that could not possibly be wrong. No proof is ever required to show that an assumption is not trivial, it works the other way around.
|
Great so you agree with me!
As you say, "No proof is ever required to show that an assumption is not trivial," so of course the halting problem does not!
The problem is, you haven't even proposed a theory, you're trying to disprove it by showing that one of its assumptions is not trivial.
Unfortunately so far, you've only stated that the assumption is not trivial and provided no evidence to support your statement.
Your OP is thus still unsupported and as far as anyone watching this is concerned both irrelevant and uninformed....
Quote:
Originally Posted by TZK
<Yawn> The supposed halting machine takes other Touring machines as input. Machines and algorithms are theoretically equivalent, so it doesn't matter which one you talk about. The algorithm can take another algorithm as input. The halting machine/algorithm recognizes it's input as another machine or algorithm. That is it's job. It takes encodings of machines or algorithms and determines if they are going to halt. To say that it can't recognize the encoding as a machine or algorithm directly contradicts it's definition.
|
Nothing I've said and nothing you've proposed indicates that there is even a single case where a proposed Halting Program cannot recognize its encoding as a machine or an algorithm.
For some completely unexplainable reason you've chosen to *complexify* the theorem beyond its definition by insisting on adding a level of indirection by including it.
As you agree in this quote, it is indeed irrelevant, but its still your completely unsupported and quite frankly completely illogical insistence that problems will occur when you give an algorithm itself as input.
Unfortunately in this last post you've continued to demonstrate your lack of understanding of the difference between "giving a program itself as input" and "recursion." I know you have had some training in programming, but you might want to investigate the difference between these two concepts before you continue to discuss this topic.
On a related note, I've gotten several notes from people who have expressed dismay at the fact that the topic of the Halting Problem proof and its implications is so interesting and so ripe for discussion while you've seemingly insisted on simply going off on a tremendously boring "Einstein is wrong" wild goose chase....it might even be interesting if you'd actually respond honestly to our requests for explanation instead of acting like the whole point is to simply create conflict by making "controversial" claims and hoping it causes and argument.
You may consider this a formal warning that you have not bothered to provide any support for your claims, and you're simply annoying our membership with your bad attitude and haughty self-importance.
Though thou canst swim like a duck, thou art made like a goose,
Buffy
