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: I call it a halting decidability decider, and thus isn't actually
 a computability decider.
Date: Mon, 5 Aug 2024 21:29:05 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 75
Message-ID: <v8s1ph$1b6r5$2@dont-email.me>
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>
 <e7ddae8f874a17ffc6f7c961f674fd3fd014ca11@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2024 04:29:05 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="198d92f6295c39b86c65eb128f10a699";
	logging-data="1416037"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX188bJiqRTZnPRnEOxrJFcJf"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1XvwgTQwefc7vWRQ5PNwj/b5P7A=
In-Reply-To: <e7ddae8f874a17ffc6f7c961f674fd3fd014ca11@i2pn2.org>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 3844

On 8/5/2024 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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.
> 

There is no freaking subjectively to a sequence of x86 instructions.
DDD correctly emulated by every HHH never reaches its own "return".
This as as much a tautology as 2 + 3 = 5.





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