Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 17:43:29 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <ce9b3873fa013760b85c7f73e59456b6f2f0edbe@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>
 <476303ac27d94a26dd563468f0ce10407e60034c@i2pn2.org>
 <v8oqfc$8767$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 21:43:29 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1459494"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
In-Reply-To: <v8oqfc$8767$1@dont-email.me>
Content-Language: en-US
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3475
Lines: 68

On 8/4/24 5:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/4/2024 3:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/4/24 3:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Which isn't halt deciding, so you are just admitting you have been 
>> lying about working on the Halting Problem.
>>
> 
> It does seem to refute Rice.
> 

Nope, because your criteria in not a semantic property of the INPUT (or 
it is trivial, as 0 is always a correct answer).

If some deciders can answer 0 for this input, because THEY can't decide 
it, but others need to answer 1 because they CAN decide it as halting, 
it isn't a property of the input, but of the input/decider pair, which 
Rice doesn't talk about.

Again, you are just proving your ignorance of what you are talking about.