1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. SCI.LOGIC

  • =?utf-8?Q?Re:_Refutation_of_Turing=E2=80=99s_1936_Halting_Problem_Proof

    From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Wed Apr 23 11:52:34 2025
    On 2025-04-21 23:52:15 +0000, olcott said:

    Computer Science Professor Eric Hehner PhD
    and I all seem to agree that the same view
    that Flibble has is the correct view.

    Others can see that their justification is defective and contradicted
    by a good proof.

    Some people claim that the unsolvability of the halting problem is
    unproven but nobody has solved the problem.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Fri Apr 25 11:46:57 2025
    On 2025-04-24 15:11:13 +0000, olcott said:

    On 4/23/2025 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-04-21 23:52:15 +0000, olcott said:

    Computer Science Professor Eric Hehner PhD
    and I all seem to agree that the same view
    that Flibble has is the correct view.

    Others can see that their justification is defective and contradicted
    by a good proof.

    Some people claim that the unsolvability of the halting problem is
    unproven but nobody has solved the problem.

    For the last 22 years I have only been refuting the
    conventional Halting Problem proof.

    Trying to refute. You have not shown any defect in that proof of the
    theorem. There are other proofs that you don't even try to refute.

    Actually solving the Halting Problem requires making a computer
    program that is literally all knowing about program termination.

    Which is provably impossible.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to olcott on Sat Apr 26 11:28:32 2025
    On 2025-04-25 16:31:58 +0000, olcott said:

    On 4/25/2025 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-04-24 15:11:13 +0000, olcott said:

    On 4/23/2025 3:52 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-04-21 23:52:15 +0000, olcott said:

    Computer Science Professor Eric Hehner PhD
    and I all seem to agree that the same view
    that Flibble has is the correct view.

    Others can see that their justification is defective and contradicted
    by a good proof.

    Some people claim that the unsolvability of the halting problem is
    unproven but nobody has solved the problem.

    For the last 22 years I have only been refuting the
    conventional Halting Problem proof.

    Trying to refute. You have not shown any defect in that proof of the
    theorem. There are other proofs that you don't even try to refute.

    Not at all. You have simply not been paying enough attention.

    Actually a have been paying too much attention. You have neve refuted
    anything. An unjustified opinion is not a proof and not a part of any
    proof.

    Once we understand that Turing computable functions are only
    allowed

    Everyting is allowed to Turing computable functions.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)