Liste des Groupes | Revenir à theory |
Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:None-the-less The Linz proof does require a pathologicalOn Mon, 05 May 2025 16:00:11 -0400, dbush wrote:[ .... ]On 5/5/2025 3:54 PM, olcott wrote:
That is not even the actual question.In other words, you don't understand what the halting problem is about,
because that is EXACTLY the question.I want to know if any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y will halt when
executed directly. It would be *very* useful to me if I had an
algorithm H that could tell me that in *all* possible cases. If so, I
could solve the Goldbach conjecture, among many other unsolved problems.Does an algorithm H exist that can tell me that or not?That isn't what the halting problem is about at all: the halting problemLinz's proof (according to Ben Bacarisse last Thursday) is a trivial
is about pathological input being undecidable but not for the reason
claimed in any halting problem proof.
corollary of the fact, proved in chapter 11 of his book, that not all
recursively enumerable languages are recursive. There is no mention of
"pathological input" anywhere in that proof.
You would do better to avoid spouting off about "any halting problem--
proof". There are several of these. It wouldn't do you any harm at all
to find out what "recursively enumerable language" means. It would put
you in a much better position to carry on the arguments in this newsgroup
intelligently.
/Flibble
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.