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: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by
 any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction
Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 20:07:58 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <v8p8le$aj5a$1@dont-email.me>
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>
 <ce9b3873fa013760b85c7f73e59456b6f2f0edbe@i2pn2.org>
 <v8otj0$8oip$1@dont-email.me>
 <5ea40e29a4d8e4014f485fdfda743b95148a961a@i2pn2.org>
 <v8ouh4$905l$1@dont-email.me>
 <7f796739dcafa335aff88a52af5e458d1253625b@i2pn2.org>
 <v8p10u$9ebu$1@dont-email.me>
 <de071bb436f1e79bc9645b5abbb1bea182d9f3e0@i2pn2.org>
 <v8p36o$9pm8$1@dont-email.me>
 <35c5358982b75ccc36bc041f980dd152f1b5c6a3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2024 03:07:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="52fde5669d3710f02f2e95e8c7e2d14c";
	logging-data="347306"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/KQJzsC4GK0NQOWJN8xF/R"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:USv7TkC8TjjSL93nb7MsmAVF++Q=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <35c5358982b75ccc36bc041f980dd152f1b5c6a3@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6011

On 8/4/2024 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/4/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/4/2024 6:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 8/4/24 6:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/4/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 8/4/24 6:15 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/4/2024 5:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/4/24 5:58 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/4/2024 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is only allowed to answer 0 when when
>>>>>>>> (a) The input does not halt
>>>>>>>> (b) The input has a pathological relationship with the decider.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which means it is not a property of the INPUT, but the input and 
>>>>>>> the decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is a property of the input.
>>>>>> (a) The input does
>>>>>> (b) The input has
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But not of JUST the input.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is a semantic property of the input.
>>>> I don't care if you lie about it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, because it depends on the decider.
>>>
>>
>> (b) Cannot possibly exist unless it is a property
>> of the input.
>>
>>
> 
> Then it can not exist, becuase it depends on more than the input.
> 

void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}

You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly
emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
instruction.

Maybe EE and a masters in EE just doesn't teach
hardly anything about actual programming.

I would hate to call you dishonest when it is just
ordinary ignorance. It can't really be just ordinary
ignorance when it feigns expertise.

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