Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: I call it a halting decidability decider, and thus isn't actually
 a computability decider.
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 18:59:18 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <529766756c05e86ee762c43daee0087e8ae283d5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8o47a$3ml4$1@dont-email.me> <v8q19o$iqvb$1@dont-email.me>
 <g7idnfxFzNYAIS37nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com> <v8qkv3$n73l$1@dont-email.me>
 <4-qdnbRw1Jw-Si37nZ2dnZfqlJwAAAAA@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 22:59:18 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1589171"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <4-qdnbRw1Jw-Si37nZ2dnZfqlJwAAAAA@giganews.com>
Bytes: 2879
Lines: 51

On 8/5/24 9:46 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/5/2024 8:44 AM, Python wrote:
>> Le 05/08/2024 à 13:50, olcott a écrit :
>>> On 8/5/2024 3:08 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-08-04 14:46:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> When we define an input that does the opposite of whatever
>>>>> value that its halt decider reports there is a way for the
>>>>> halt decider to report correctly.
>>>>>
>>>>> int DD()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>    if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>      HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>    return Halt_Status;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>>    HHH(DD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH returns false indicating that it cannot
>>>>> correctly determine that its input halts.
>>>>> True would mean that its input halts.
>>>>
>>>> That is called a "partial halt decider". The set of requirements is
>>>> a subset of the requirements for "halt decider" but still require
>>>> that the answer is not "halts" if the input does not halt and that
>>>> the answer is not "does not halt" if the input halts. The difference
>>>> is that a "halt decider" is required to give one of these answers
>>>> for every input but a "partial halt decider" is not.
>>>>
>>>> For every computation there is a partial halt decider that answers it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I call it a halting decidability decider.
>>> 1=input halts
>>> 0=input does not halt or has pathological relationship with its decider
>>
>> So it is NOT an halt decider. Case closed. You've lost your time
>> for years, and made a lot of people lose their time too.
>>
>>
>>
> 
> It refutes Rice
> 

Nope, since the criteria is not a avalid criteria, as it is a subjective 
criteria, and NOT a property of JUST the input.