Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<f7f9c03f97de054f6393139c74f595f68400ede5@i2pn2.org> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!news.misty.com!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: A third line of cancer treatment reversed the growth of the right paracaval lymph node Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 18:56:12 -0500 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: <f7f9c03f97de054f6393139c74f595f68400ede5@i2pn2.org> References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me> <vnv4tf$2a40b$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <vnvv32$2e9m1$1@dont-email.me> <vo2pd4$31nli$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> <vo2us8$32kg8$1@dont-email.me> <228a9804d6919149bac728ccf08134ed90db121e@i2pn2.org> <vo3cf0$35449$1@dont-email.me> <6f15178eda69b13fae9cbfef29acad05c9c6aeb3@i2pn2.org> <vo3t3n$37kcg$1@dont-email.me> <1454e934b709b66a0cb9de9e9796cb46fed0425c@i2pn2.org> <vo5c8c$3ipo2$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 23:56:12 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="3190059"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: <vo5c8c$3ipo2$2@dont-email.me> Content-Language: en-US X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Bytes: 4390 Lines: 79 On 2/7/25 11:26 AM, olcott wrote: > On 2/7/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 2/6/25 10:02 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 2/6/2025 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 2/6/25 5:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 2/6/2025 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 2/6/25 1:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 2/6/2025 10:52 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>>> Am 05.02.2025 um 16:11 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 2/5/2025 1:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am 05.02.2025 um 04:38 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> This treatment does not typically last very long and >>>>>>>>>>> will be immediately followed by a riskier fourth line >>>>>>>>>>> of treatment that has an initial success rate much higher >>>>>>>>>>> than its non progression mortality rate. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Halting problem solved ! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The halting problem proof input does specify non-halting >>>>>>>>> behavior to its decider. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ >>>>>>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> LOOOOOOOOL >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Anyone that understands the C programming language >>>>>>> sufficiently well (thus not confused by the unreachable >>>>>>> "if" statement) correctly understands that DD simulated >>>>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And anyone that understand the halting problem knows that isn't >>>>>> the question being asked. The quesiton you NEED to ask is will the >>>>>> program described by the input halt when run? >>>>>> >>>>>> Since you start off with the wrong question, you logic is just >>>>>> faulty. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Everyone that thinks my question is incorrect is wrong. >>>>> It has always been a mathematical mapping from finite >>>>> strings to behaviors. That people do not comprehend this >>>>> shows the shallowness of the depth of the learned-by-rote >>>>> (lack of) understanding. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, you are just incorreect as you don't know what you are talking >>>> about. >>>> >>>> Yes, it is a mapping of the string to the behavior, and that mapping >>>> is DEFINED to be the halting behavior of the program the string >>>> describes. >>>> >>> >>> No this is incorrect. The input finite string specifies >>> (not merely describes) non halting behavior to its decider. >>> >> >> No, since the definition of "Halting Behavior" is the behavior of the >> progran being run. >> > > It may seem that way to people that have learned-by-rote > as their only basis. It is actually nothing like that. No, that *IS* the definition. > > It is not the behavior that you believe it talks about. > It is the behavior that the finite string actually specifies. > Show a definition that supports it;. From a reputable sourse. Until you do, you are just demonstrating you are just a lying idiot.