| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v8v61f$29aqq$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2024 09:59:59 +0300
Organization: -
Lines: 64
Message-ID: <v8v61f$29aqq$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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 07 Aug 2024 08:59:59 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="309a9fad157fc17c9a7da32f6d0fe325";
logging-data="2403162"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX185uqgljux1Kp6sONc8+Z02"
User-Agent: Unison/2.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:T/00RxGmgU3Cpq6oWmo1+mP7Rc0=
Bytes: 3096
On 2024-08-04 19:33:36 +0000, olcott said:
> 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
Conventionally the value 0 is used for "no" (for example, no errors)
and value 1 for "yes". If there are different "yes" results other
numbers in addition to 1 can be used. For example, for the question
"is there anu errors?" the number may identify the error. For a
partial halt decider the best values are
-1 = does not halt
0 = not determined
1 = halts.
In C the value 0 is interpreted as false and every other number,
positive or negative, is interpreted as true in every context
where a boolean value is expected.
--
Mikko