= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Johnicholas comments on LW/OB Quotes - Fall 2009 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (48)
There's a flaw in your proof - the step from "The machine will necessarily stop" to "This solves the halting problem" is unjustified.
Despite the flaw, I agree with your general conclusion - there are and will be challenging as well as unsolvable problems.
It's justified. If a machine halts, then there's a proof of that in PA (simply the list of steps it performs before halting). Therefore, "independent of PA" implies "doesn't halt". Therefore, a provability decider is the same as a halting decider.
With the added steps, yes, there is a proof.