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: Defining a correct halting decidability decider (Which isn't a
 valid criteria for a decider)
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 21:03:06 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9f2872b70003930dccf15ebab34c0572dcfd3dd5@i2pn2.org>
References: <v8o47a$3ml4$1@dont-email.me>
 <0ec454016dab6f6d6dd5580f5d0eea49569293d8@i2pn2.org>
 <v8oigl$6kik$1@dont-email.me>
 <6ec9812649b0f4a042edd1e9a1c14b93e7b9a16b@i2pn2.org>
 <v8ol2g$74lk$1@dont-email.me> <v8v61f$29aqq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8vrsb$32fso$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 01:03:07 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1814287"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <v8vrsb$32fso$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 4490
Lines: 90

On 8/7/24 9:12 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/7/2024 1:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-08-04 19:33:36 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 8/4/2024 2:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 8/4/24 2:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 8/4/2024 1:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/4/24 10:46 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But false indicates that the input does not halt, but it does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I made a mistake that I corrected on a forum that allows
>>>>> editing: *Defining a correct halting decidability decider*
>>>>> 1=input does halt
>>>>> 0=input cannot be decided to halt
>>>>
>>>> And thus, not a halt decider.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, you are just showing your ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> And, the problem is that a given DD *CAN* be decided about halting, 
>>>> just not by HHH, so "can not be decided" is not a correct answer.
>>>
>>> A single universal decider can correctly determine whether
>>> or not an input could possibly be denial-of-service-attack.
>>> 0=yes does not halt or pathological self-reference
>>> 1=no  halts
>>
>> Conventionally the value 0 is used for "no" (for example, no errors)
>> and value 1 for "yes". If there are different "yes" results other
> 
> A Conventional halt decider is 1 for halts and 0 for does not halt.
> 0 also means input has pathological relationship to decider.
> In other words 1 means good input and 0 means bad input.

Except that there is nothing "bad" about the input, just that the 
decider it uses will get the wrong wnswer.

Also, that criteria isn't a valid criteria, as it is subjective, having 
a different answer when the same input is given to different decideres.

So, all you are doing is admitting that you have not been doing the 
problem you claime to have been doing, and thus have been a LIAR for 
years, and don't even know what a valid decision problem is.


> 
>> numbers in addition to 1 can be used. For example, for the question
>> "is there anu errors?" the number may identify the error. For a
>> partial halt decider the best values are
>> -1 = does not halt
>> 0 = not determined
>> 1 = halts.
>>
>> In C the value 0 is interpreted as false and every other number,
>> positive or negative, is interpreted as true in every context
>> where a boolean value is expected.
>>
> 
> I have known that since K&R was the standard.
> I met Bjarne Stroustrup we he went around the country
> promoting his new C++ language at the local universities.
> He was a tee shirt and blue jeans kind of guy.
> 

So, why do you not know that when DDD calls HHH, that the code in HHH is 
part of the code in the program created by DDD?

That has ALWAYS been true.