This is the essence of an alternative proof related to
the halting problem
*It seems that everyone agrees with this*
(a) When the halting problem is defined with a program
specification that requires an H to report on the behavior
of the direct execution of D(D) that does the opposite of
whatever Boolean value that H returns then this is an
unsatisfiable program specification.
(b) *An unsatisfiable program specification is merely*
*the inability to do the logically impossible thus places*
*no actual limit on anyone or anything*
This is the essence of an alternative proof related to
the halting problem
*It seems that everyone agrees with this*
(a) When the halting problem is defined with a program
specification that requires an H to report on the behavior
of the direct execution of D(D) that does the opposite of
whatever Boolean value that H returns then this is an
unsatisfiable program specification.
(b) *An unsatisfiable program specification is merely*
*the inability to do the logically impossible thus places*
*no actual limit on anyone or anything*
On 10/22/2023 7:57 PM, olcott wrote:
This is the essence of an alternative proof related to
the halting problem
*It seems that everyone agrees with this*
(a) When the halting problem is defined with a program
specification that requires an H to report on the behavior
of the direct execution of D(D) that does the opposite of
whatever Boolean value that H returns then this is an
unsatisfiable program specification.
(b) *An unsatisfiable program specification is merely*
*the inability to do the logically impossible thus places*
*no actual limit on anyone or anything*
The halting problem proofs only show that no machine
can do the logically impossible.
Since 1936 no one ever noticed that the inability to
do the logically impossible is merely a fake ruse of
a limit and not any actual limit what-so-ever.
On 10/24/2023 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/24/2023 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/23/2023 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/23/2023 11:03 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 10/23/2023 6:51 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 24/10/2023 01:31, olcott wrote:
<major snip>
So why do you persist? I know it's really hard to not try toIt provides significant evidence that I am not simply
a crackpot that can be correctly dismissed out of hand.
It provides NO such evidence, because your "supporter" is not here >>>>>> in the thread. Also, you are not dismissed "out of hand" - you
are dismissed because your posts show you to not understand what
you're talking about, and have no ability to process logical
arguments or understand abstract concepts, regardless of how
they're presented to you. Many people (myself included) have
carefully explained to you why you are incorrect, but it always
turns out to be a waste of time! :)
"crack" a crackpot but virtue is in resisting. I hardly ever read a
post by Impotent Pete or Richard the Ernest since their posts are a
mechanism to avoid bleak lives - repetition upon repetition.
Consider, for example, the Schopenhauer quote "Talent hits a target
no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." as
part of the Impotent's signature: one can comment as much as you
want about the fact that he 1) mostly strikes out and 2) is blind.
What's the point? He's too stupid and non self-aware to notice the
irony involved - repetition upon repetition.
My latest line-of-reasoning has a full PhD professor of
computer science totally agreeing with one of my alternate
proofs that I began in 2004. He has published several
times in the two most prestigious computer science journals
and has been a full professor for decades.
Recently I have only been posting summarized versions
of our shared view.
*He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
*He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
How can this be misunderstood?
As always dishonest reviewers change the subject
rather than acknowledging that I proved my point.
Dishonest reviewers have no interest in any honest
dialogue and intentionally thwart the slightest
degree of closure on even one single point.
On 10/24/2023 12:54 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/24/2023 12:25 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/24/2023 11:56 AM, olcott wrote:
On 10/23/2023 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
On 10/23/2023 11:03 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
On 10/23/2023 6:51 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
On 24/10/2023 01:31, olcott wrote:
<major snip>
So why do you persist? I know it's really hard to not try toIt provides significant evidence that I am not simply
a crackpot that can be correctly dismissed out of hand.
It provides NO such evidence, because your "supporter" is not
here in the thread. Also, you are not dismissed "out of hand" - >>>>>>> you are dismissed because your posts show you to not understand
what you're talking about, and have no ability to process logical >>>>>>> arguments or understand abstract concepts, regardless of how
they're presented to you. Many people (myself included) have
carefully explained to you why you are incorrect, but it always
turns out to be a waste of time! :)
"crack" a crackpot but virtue is in resisting. I hardly ever read
a post by Impotent Pete or Richard the Ernest since their posts
are a mechanism to avoid bleak lives - repetition upon repetition. >>>>>>
Consider, for example, the Schopenhauer quote "Talent hits a
target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can
see." as part of the Impotent's signature: one can comment as much >>>>>> as you want about the fact that he 1) mostly strikes out and 2) is >>>>>> blind. What's the point? He's too stupid and non self-aware to
notice the irony involved - repetition upon repetition.
My latest line-of-reasoning has a full PhD professor of
computer science totally agreeing with one of my alternate
proofs that I began in 2004. He has published several
times in the two most prestigious computer science journals
and has been a full professor for decades.
Recently I have only been posting summarized versions
of our shared view.
*He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
*He agrees that the halting problem is WRONG*
How can this be misunderstood?
As always dishonest reviewers change the subject
rather than acknowledging that I proved my point.
Dishonest reviewers have no interest in any honest
dialogue and intentionally thwart the slightest
degree of closure on even one single point.
In all of the cases where a computational problem cannot
be solved because it <is> isomorphic to a self-contradictory
question we reject the problem itself as incorrect.
In those cases where a computational problem cannot be solved
in finite time because it requires testing every element of
an infinite set the problem definition might not be construed
as incorrect.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 111:27:04 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,950 |