Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <abc@def.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 14:33:36 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <v8ol2g$74lk$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8o47a$3ml4$1@dont-email.me>
 <0ec454016dab6f6d6dd5580f5d0eea49569293d8@i2pn2.org>
 <v8oigl$6kik$1@dont-email.me>
 <6ec9812649b0f4a042edd1e9a1c14b93e7b9a16b@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2024 21:33:36 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="903796c801119a1f2fd86200a8e93bf1";
	logging-data="234164"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+uJ30STk+YTCbDrs6gXLvF"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0LQH/R6icgo1nNMttyD4Z+yH7eU=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <6ec9812649b0f4a042edd1e9a1c14b93e7b9a16b@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 2674

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


-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer