From: rjh@cpax.org.uk   
      
   On 08/02/2023 9:07 pm, Ben Bacarisse wrote:   
   > Richard Heathfield  writes:   
   >   
   >> On 08/02/2023 3:03 pm, Paul N wrote:   
   >>> On Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 9:58:29 PM UTC, JJ wrote:   
   >>>> If you go to any programming sub in Reddit, or any programming channel in   
   >>>> Discord, you'll realize that some people aren't capable of realizing that   
   >>>> they are wrong.   
   >   
   > Yes, it's a rather quaint idea.  Some subjects might make it easier for   
   > people with open minds to discover their mistakes, but it's very far   
   > from being universal!   
      
   Indeed, although computer programs have proven to be singularly   
   adept at proving their authors wrong!   
      
   >>> This is even more obvious in comp.theory. There is a poster there who   
   >>> claims to have refuted the Halting Problem proof,   
   >>   
   >> I refute it too. Bear with me.   
   >   
   > OK...   
      
   Ta.   
      
   >>> and to have a system which can accurately determine whether a program   
   >>> will halt or not.   
   >>   
   >> I, too, have such a system. Bear with me.   
   >   
   > This is a rather different claim.  The "Halting Problem proof" surely   
   > refers to a proof of a specific mathematical theorem, so it's not clear   
   > in what way any particular C program refutes it.   
      
   The refutation is in the program's output (which is always correct):   
      
   If executed, the specified program will halt.   
      
   Which it will. ALL programs halt.   
      
   >   
   >>> He has a demonstration program, which he claims does not halt   
   >   
   > His claims change, but when I last checked in he (the loon in   
   > comp.theory) was still being clear that the program in question halts.   
   > He's posted code, he's posted traces of the simulation, he's stated it   
   > in plain words.   
   >   
   >> He is mistaken.   
   >   
   > On this point, no.   
      
   The specific statement I was addressing was: "He has a   
   demonstration program, which he claims does not halt"   
      
   Such a claim would be erroneous.   
      
   If he makes the opposite claim: "still being clear that the   
   program in question halts", then of course he is correct in   
   making that specific claim.   
      
   >   
   >>> and which his detector identifies as non-halting.   
   >>   
   >> His detector errs.   
   >>   
   >>> He does however accept that when said program is run, it halts.   
   >   
   > Just to clear up the nonsense he spouts, he claims that "non-halting" is   
   > the right answer because of what /would/ happen if the program were not   
   > stopped -- that the program in question only halts because it is stopped   
   > "by itself".  Yes, it's bonkers, but he maintains he's right because   
   > he's changed what "halting" means.   
      
   We all know what "halting" means, and we all should know that all   
   programs halt.   
      
      
      
   > OK, /I/ know you are joking, but will everyone?   
      
   No. That's part of the joy of Usenet.   
      
   > Do we want any more   
   > people confused about what the halting theorem is about?   
      
   Interesting exercise: attempt to justify a "yes" answer in an   
   entertaining way. (I came up with three that are far too dull to   
   post.)   
      
   >   
   > (I know you are not a   
   > crank, you are just having a bit of fun).   
      
   After such kind words, I suppose I had better let go of the handle.   
      
   --   
   Richard Heathfield   
   Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk   
   "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999   
   Sig line 4 vacant - apply within   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)