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

Path	csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
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	Sat, 12 Sep 2020 22:28:43 -0700
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Lines	13
Message-ID	<86lfhe2qk4.fsf@linuxsc.com> (permalink)
References	<ddb005de-055c-44d0-b865-51a8a2daacf1n@googlegroups.com> <2bWdncV6duQIcMbCnZ2dnUU78b3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <r-Gdna4uQ-XpYsbCnZ2dnUU7-KPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <2e60425e-34f9-4354-815b-aaf28d73f7ebo@googlegroups.com> <2dudnbCk_f-rmsHCnZ2dnUU7-WudnZ2d@giganews.com> <3umdnYJZTKAMi8HCnZ2dnUU78N3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <itidndddWLVnhsHCnZ2dnUU7-efNnZ2d@giganews.com> <fwewo0z86vt.fsf@foxtrot.inf.ed.ac.uk> <waednZl8VqkcScHCnZ2dnUU7-Y_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <baa021da-41f8-48a5-b567-6905c43df985n@googlegroups.com> <FuGdnaOIwcmbccHCnZ2dnUU7-QPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <b8a1411a-9cd0-4b93-85b7-eb7d689dec48n@googlegroups.com> <CqmdndrP--BBbMHCnZ2dnUU7-S_NnZ2d@giganews.com> <1454f32c-5192-4f93-94b0-636bf132c456n@googlegroups.com> <Y82dndoHeurrlMDCnZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> <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>
Mime-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info	reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="94c20496801271c42e84b298ad5f3672"; logging-data="28970"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Pcbv/Vat/k4wJT8cixcdsVwWdRqe1OAU="
User-Agent	Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock	sha1:1YsFmt2f7v3uMSzY9VMAI/qdtk8= sha1:k9pHNTrjKSotlqIMNcZECym036M=
Xref	csiph.com comp.lang.c:154925

Show key headers only | 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