I found an interesting math result, but now I see a contradiction

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a mathematical result related to the halting problem and its implications, specifically addressing a perceived contradiction in the claim that the halting problem is solvable. Participants explore the validity of this claim and the underlying reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Debate/contested, Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant claims to have found an interesting result suggesting that the halting problem is essentially solvable, but later identifies a contradiction in this assertion.
  • Another participant points out an error in the original article linked by the first participant, indicating that it contains a valid result that challenges traditional views on mathematics.
  • A third participant critiques the reliance on faith as a basis for the claims made in the articles, emphasizing the need for scientific grounding in discussions on the forums.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the claims regarding the halting problem and the nature of the results presented. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus reached on the correctness of the arguments or the interpretations of the mathematical results.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the reliance on potentially unverified claims and the challenge of reconciling faith-based reasoning with scientific discourse. The discussion also highlights the need for clarity in definitions and assumptions related to the mathematical concepts involved.

porton
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
TL;DR
I found an interesting math result ("halting problem is essentially solvable") yesterday, but now I see a contradiction (it follows "halting problem is solvable"). Participate in finding my error.
I found an interesting math result ("halting problem is essentially solvable") yesterday, but now I see a contradiction (it follows "halting problem is solvable"). Participate in finding my error.

Here is my short yesterday article (with links to other yesterday articles):

[Unacceptable reference redacted by the Mentors]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I've found an error myself:

In the linked article [Unacceptable reference redacted by the Mentors] I describe the error in bold font.

The linked article nevertheless had another valid very interesting result that replaces the paradigm that mathematics is theorem proving by another paradigm.

You have a new release of mathematics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy
I glanced at the article, and found that it referenced your prior article on using Peano Arithmetic to avoid Godel's incompleteness result ##-## the only 'support' in that article for your contention was 'faith'; not science. Please understand that PF is a set of forums for science; not for exploring faith-based ideas about scientific and mathematical matters. Please read the guidelines, and if you have questions or concerns about any of them, please PM one of the Mentors.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: berkeman, jedishrfu and PeroK
And with that helpful reply by @sysprog the thread is now closed.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sysprog

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
954
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
8K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
383
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K