Sujet : Re: Linz's proofs.
De : ben.usenet (at) *nospam* bsb.me.uk (Ben Bacarisse)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 07. Mar 2024, 18:16:28
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <877ciehvab.fsf@bsb.me.uk>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
User-Agent : Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
immibis <
news@immibis.com> writes:
On 7/03/24 12:32, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
The students I taught seemed to have no problem with this sort of case
analysis. But the "assume H does X" argument lead to lots of "but H1
could be better" arguments.
>
They aren't satisfied with "we can do the exact same thing with H1 to prove
that H1 doesn't work either"?
In the vast majority of cases, yes, but even then there is a logical
problem with going down that route -- there is no H so there can't be an
H1 that does better. Once this objection is properly examined, it turns
out to be the argument I ended up preferring anyway. H isn't a halt
decider, it's just any old TM and we show it can't be halt decider for
one reason or another.
-- Ben.