Sujet : Re: Formal systems that cannot possibly be incomplete except for unknowns and unknowable
De : rjh (at) *nospam* cpax.org.uk (Richard Heathfield)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 07. May 2025, 19:59:20
Autres entêtes
Organisation : Fix this later
Message-ID : <vvgai8$158tp$6@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 07/05/2025 19:31, olcott wrote:
On 5/7/2025 1:14 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
On 07/05/2025 18:55, olcott wrote:
When THERE IS NO CONTRADICTION then proof by contradiction fails.
How do you not get that?
>
I do. You must be talking about the Olcott Problem again, because the contradiction is inherent in the Halting Problem.
>
Not when its terrible mistake is corrected.
There isn't a terrible mistake in the Halting Problem.
It starts with the assumption that a universal halt decider can be written, and then shows that such a decider can be used to devise a program that the 'universal' decider can't decide --- a contradiction.
>
But you already know all this.
>
I already know that the contradictory part of the
counter-example input has always been unreachable code.
If the code is unreachable, it can't be part of a working program, so simply remove it.
Thus PROOF BY CONTRADICTION FAILS because there never
was any actual contradiction. It has been a false assumption
that there has been a contradiction for 90 years.
If you have no idea what unreachable code is you won't
get this.
I know precisely what unreachable code is.
Take it out. It's unreachable, so it cannot contribute to the work of the program. Why did you bother to put it in?
-- Richard HeathfieldEmail: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
…