Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (HP refutation)

From	Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (HP refutation)
Date	2020-09-12 22:28 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<86lfhe2qk4.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink)
References	(15 earlier) <b7018caf-e9ee-41d9-8951-531f616a77fan@googlegroups.com> <pNadndwMMfskuMDCnZ2dnUU7-QnNnZ2d@giganews.com> <onc7H.96581$BL.64378@fx16.iad> <z8qdnVIW-ZG4x8DCnZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <J%d7H.67332$RN.21437@fx13.iad>

Show all headers | View raw

Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:

> On 9/12/20 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>
>> That is a great analysis, yet possibly incorrect if the whole idea of
>> the halting problem proofs are anchored in a fundamental misconception.
>
> And I don't understand what a working simulation of a Turing Machine
> will help if you intend to invalidate the basic rules of logic used to
> describe them.

I doubt very much that you will accomplish anything useful
by continuing this conversation any further.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (H is bad?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-10 14:13 -0500
  Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (H is bad?) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-09-10 16:22 -0600
    Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (H is bad?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-10 17:40 -0500
      Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (H is bad?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-11 21:03 -0500
      Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (H is bad?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-11 21:12 -0500
        Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (H is bad?) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-09-12 00:25 -0600
          Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (H is bad?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-12 08:06 -0500
      Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (Venn Diagrams) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-12 10:40 -0500
        Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-12 14:47 -0500
          Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (HP refutation) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-09-12 18:57 -0400
            Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-12 18:30 -0500
              Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (HP refutation) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-09-12 20:48 -0400
                Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-12 20:00 -0500
                Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (HP refutation) Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2020-09-12 22:28 -0700
                Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-13 00:41 -0500
        Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (Venn Diagrams) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-12 16:45 -0500
        Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (Venn Diagrams) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-12 19:23 -0500
          Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-12 21:49 -0500
            Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (Actual TM fully encoded) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-13 10:13 -0500
            Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-13 11:37 -0500
              Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (HP refutation) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-09-13 11:18 -0600
                Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-13 12:35 -0500
              Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (HP refutation) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2020-09-13 19:10 +0100
                Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-13 13:48 -0500
            Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-13 14:35 -0500
              Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (HP refutation) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-09-13 16:13 -0600
                Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (HP refutation) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2020-09-13 15:30 -0700
                Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (HP refutation) Graham Cooper <grahamcooper7@gmail.com> - 2020-09-13 15:31 -0700
      Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (Tree of Knowledge) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-12 16:42 -0500
    Re: Why halt deciders can't be "interesting" programs. (H is bad?) Graham Cooper <grahamcooper7@gmail.com> - 2020-09-13 15:36 -0700

csiph-web