Karma Peny

This short video (under 3 minutes) proposes a novel way around the proof that no solution can be found for the halting problem:

Denis

....and?

SDK

1. Proofs are not things to "get around". They are exactly what the name implies, a proof that the suggested proposition is true.

2. You haven't debunked this theorem because theorems are things that have been proved true. By definition, they can't be debunked.

3. What you have actually done is stated a different claim (a strawman) and supposedly debunked this. Not only am I not convinced that your construction actually does what it claims, but the problem you are applying it to is NOT the halting problem. The halting problem says nothing about crashing.

You can't restate the result of the theorem and then pretend you are talking about the same thing. You didn't debunk the proof because you CAN'T debunk a proof. A sensible person would not bother trying.

Denis

Will "finding a proof that endless loops cannot be eliminated" or
finding a way to eliminate them bring down the price of groceries?

ANUTter video on this foolishness:

skipjack

The Predict_Result program referenced in the theorem fails to predict correctly for a Program X that directly or indirectly invokes Predict_Result (or a program much the same as Predict_Result) to obtain a prediction for Program X , so Predict_Result might work correctly in all other cases.