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.