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 21:32:08 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <e7ddae8f874a17ffc6f7c961f674fd3fd014ca11@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>
 <529766756c05e86ee762c43daee0087e8ae283d5@i2pn2.org>
 <v8rsav$15pid$5@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2024 01:32:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1597748"; 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: <v8rsav$15pid$5@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3952
Lines: 80

On 8/5/24 8:55 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/5/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> A freaking actual execution trace is not freaking subjective.
> 

If the trace depends on who does it, it is.

But then, part of your problem is that HHH doesn't actual do a correct 
emulation, so you can't use that as your grounds.

Do you not agree that giving the DDD/HHH pair to different deciders can 
result in different answers?

When we give it to HHH, it should say 0, but if we give it to HHH1, it 
should say 1.

Thus, the question is BY DEFINITION, subjective.

And, if you try to claim that we pair DDD with whatever decider we give 
it to, then it isn't a Program, as it doesn't have its own complete 
instrucctions, and doesn't always behave the same, so you are just 
caught lying that it is a proper input.

Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.