|
Message Closed
modified 19-May-23 21:18pm.
|
|
|
|
|
polcott wrote: Any competent software engineer...
Any competent civil engineer can design a bridge that doesn't fall down. Yet they do.
You said in the OP
"Will D ever reach its own.."
Ever means just that. In no situation in no time period.
Any competent engineer (of any discipline) understands that there is a big difference between one single case and all cases for all time.
The problem that you are looking at has been proven to be impossible.
Any compentent engineer then understands that they must then do the following to achieve what you want.
1. Invalidate the original proof
2. Provide a new proof that it can fail. This by itself might provide the first.
That is mathematics and not software.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 19-May-23 21:21pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Try submitting it here for more peer review.
Frontiers | Publisher of peer-reviewed articles in open access journals[^]
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 19-May-23 21:23pm.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, then how about starting here.
Author Guidelines | Communications of the ACM[^]
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 19-May-23 21:26pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Moshe Y. Vardi the former editor in chief of the CACM
How about now, armed with your quote?
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 19-May-23 21:20pm.
|
|
|
|
|
polcott wrote: He has already made up his mind
Who's 'he', the current editor? Look, if your stated aim to publish there (CAMC), then concentrate your efforts there. It doesn't seem as though 'here' is getting you anywhere.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 19-May-23 21:24pm.
|
|
|
|
|
polcott wrote: Because my writing style is not even close the the writing style of a published PhD researcher what I say is almost always rejected out-of-hand without review of the substance of what I have said.
For some reason I doubt that.
What would happen if everyone here agreed with your conclusion?
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 19-May-23 21:20pm.
|
|
|
|
|
polcott wrote: If everyone here agreed that page three of this paper is correct
Probably not going to happen here, so just cut to the chase. Change the title and submit, possibly adding that professors name somehow in the title.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 19-May-23 21:24pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You are correct.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 19-May-23 21:19pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I claimed nothing about your conclusions one way or another.
polcott wrote: The objective facts prove that I am correct thus superseding all opinions to the contrary.
Where has that got you?
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 19-May-23 21:28pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You can't force people to care, that's the truth.
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
harold aptroot wrote: You already wrote papers about this..
Ah...well then that makes some of the rest more clear then.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 19-May-23 21:28pm.
|
|
|
|
|
polcott wrote: Whether or not these insights apply to the actual halting problem is a next level review that must be done by a qualified computer scientist.
The code you have provided is a demonstration of something that has already been demonstrated mathematically. Doesn't matter how you phrase your posts that remains true.
Lets say you create a interpreter which changes the context in which the problem runs. For example it halts every single time a specific instruction is called. Certainly provable that it halts then. But that is a different problem than the one you posted.
So your choices are
1. Find your own problem and prove anything you want about it. You must fully define the problem space.
2. Find a way to invalidate the existing Turing proof using the context in which it was presented. You do not get to change that context - if you want to change the context then see item #1.
Note that step #1 even being fully correct will say nothing about the Turing proof.
|
|
|
|
|
Message Closed
modified 19-May-23 21:27pm.
|
|
|
|
|
polcott wrote: cannot possibly terminate normally.
Nigel Molesworth* wrote: As any fule kno.
*The curse of St. Custard's
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
