3 ms·
The amount of cursed acceptance of this idiotic proof is incredible. It’s like saying you’re not allowed to flip coins because they might land on their head. Th
by bionhoward 3y ago
The amount of cursed acceptance of this idiotic proof is incredible. It’s like saying you’re not allowed to flip coins because they might land on their head. The whole argument for the undecidablility of the halting problem is based on an anti symmetric G which cheats at the halting problem by invoking H, but when you make H, you could detect that and crash H.
the halting problem is either truly solvable, or there is an actual proof which doesn’t rely on weak unconstructable paradox.
At least TFA didn’t regurgitate the bad proof and accept it. However, they did worse, they accepted the bad proof without even attempting to regurgitate it.
- pringk02 3y agoTwo questions out of curiosity: * Do you also reject Church's more formal proof? * Do you more generally reject the rule of the excluded middle and would you generally think of yourself as a Constructivist?
- bheadmaster 3y ago> the halting problem is either truly solvable, or there is an actual proof which doesn’t rely on weak unconstructable paradox. Do you have any proof of this statement?
- gizmo686 3y ago"Crashing" is not a concept in Turing machines. More practically, if you does_halt algorithm "crashes" on certain inputs, then it fails to give an answer to those inputs, and so is not a solution to the halting problem. There is a real insight in your comment though. There is a weaker version of the halting problem, where the goal is to write a does_halt function that returns yes/no/maybe. That problem is trivially solvable. There are also non-trivial solutions to it that are actually useful.