Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriminal99
So that would mean...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.
|
That's ridiculous!
Just because you choose an algorithm that traces and that does not halt, does not invalidate the proof. What Turing is saying is that there aren't *any* that work!
If you identify a class of programs intended to solve the Halting Problem that by definition do not halt, it has no impact on the whether the theorem is valid.
Nor does it matter that the weaker claim that there exist programs that can solve the Halting Problem as long as they do not try to work on themselves: that's just an alternate theorem that its up to you to prove if you wish.
What you're arguing is somewhat interesting, heck it would be interesting to have a discussion concerning the validity of the assertion "all programs that use a tracing algorithm to determine halting states will not halt," which might even be true!
But as should be clear from the discussion so far, it bears absolutely no relevance in determining the validity of Turing's theorem. Any inability to see this simply comes from a misunderstanding of it.
The last part of your argument simply seems to be that nothing can be proven by contradiction, which would certainly be an interesting philosophical problem to attack, but it should be done in my opinion without the obfuscation of a particular theorem.
Such an approach is, to use your own term, "weak."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriminal99
I am not doing anything.
|
Well, nothing useful at any rate!
That's exactly what a 4 year old says when being scolded to stop poking his little sister....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriminal99
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.
|
Need a mirror?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kriminal99
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...
|
Nor should they! I'm perfectly harmless!
Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality the cost becomes prohibitive,
Buffy
