Jim Henderson wrote:
> Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. ;-)

Sure it is. It's not proof of absence, of course, but it's stronger 
evidence than not.

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/08/absence-of-evid.html

> But now here, in the 21st century, we've finally exhausted the base of 
> knowledge?  I don't think that's the case.

The problem is that you're confusing math with physics. In math, yes, we 
have exhausted the base of knowledge of the halting problem. The halting 
problem goes like this:

Assume A.  Assume B.   Assume C.  Therefore D.

You're arguing "maybe assumption B is counterfactual."  That doesn't 
disprove the halting problem. It doesn't mean you can solve the halting 
problem. It merely means the halting problem doesn't apply to your 
current situation.

Indeed, one of the assumptions required for the halting problem to hold 
(namely, unbounded storage) is *known* to be impossible to realize in 
this universe (or at least normally assumed to be impossible even by 
people who understand the halting problem). That *still* doesn't mean 
the halting problem is "solved".

Math isn't physics.

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message