Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffy
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....
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 |
So that would mean ( I can see how the logical calculations could get difficult with that many nots) that Touring must prove that a Halting machine definitely would not trace computations of it's input machine for his "proof" to have any bearing on the possible existence of a Halting machine at all. The fact that he is assuming things about something that he wants to claim doesn't exist is a big no - no and a dead give away that something is wrong with the proof in of itself.
I am not doing anything. Touring proposes a logically flawed proof - a proof by contradiction with unrecognized assumptions about that which he tries to prove does not exist. The fact that some people were inept enough logically to accept it does not somehow magically change it's objective truth status.
Your ideas regarding science, math and logic seem to be backwards at best, as you always demonstrate by arguments which implicitly define truth as being whatever the majority of people believe. This type of thinking has no place here.
The notion that I have somehow attempted to "complexify" a completely contrived and invalid proof is laugable at best.
Infinite Recursion occurs when a copy and trace machine runs on itself (it's own encoding for the layman).
When you fail to understand someone else's argument, it does not validate the claim that they somehow failed. This attitude could easily create this situation where you refuse to consider any argument you don't find emotionally convenient and then declare that the argument failed because it didn't make sense to you (as you didn't even look at it properly). Nor can this be resolved by taking some sort of poll of people who share biases with you. The truth is the truth and it is not subject to your whims.
I really don't think anyone is concerned with your silly little warnings or any other form of emotional outburst you may choose to display...
