Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 06:36:41 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 126
Message-ID: <v97jca$ilah$4@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> <v8v61f$29aqq$1@dont-email.me>
 <v8vrsb$32fso$5@dont-email.me> <v91r57$3qct4$1@dont-email.me>
 <v92gpl$p1$4@dont-email.me> <v94lkb$lh2p$1@dont-email.me>
 <v956lm$o1gt$3@dont-email.me> <v977s1$guti$1@dont-email.me>
 <v97he3$ilah$1@dont-email.me>
 <9b40742c37ad340da1e5cce7b598b7530f874903@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2024 13:36:42 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="ec0d1ee71ceed677a7540299f25b1a73";
	logging-data="611665"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19TzfA3tACSVt3AH5tEJ+pM"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+EWEydvPe8ZeDgIS+eKhZosd6GQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <9b40742c37ad340da1e5cce7b598b7530f874903@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 6264

On 8/10/2024 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/10/24 7:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/10/2024 3:20 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-08-09 13:47:34 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 8/9/2024 3:56 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2024-08-08 13:21:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/8/2024 2:12 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2024-08-07 13:12:43 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/7/2024 1:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A Conventional halt decider is 1 for halts and 0 for does not halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is because conventionally the question is "Does thing 
>>>>>>> computation
>>>>>>> halt?" so "yes" means the same as "halts".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 0 also means input has pathological relationship to decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It cannot mean both "does not halt" and "has pathological 
>>>>>>> relationship
>>>>>>> to decider". Those two don't mean the same.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words 1 means good input and 0 means bad input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is not the same in other words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> An input is good in one sense if it specifies a computation and 
>>>>>>> bad if
>>>>>>> it does not. In the latter case the decider is free to do 
>>>>>>> anything as
>>>>>>> the input is not in its scope.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In another sense an input is good if it is as the user wants it 
>>>>>>> to be.
>>>>>>> If the user wants a non-halting computation then a halting one is 
>>>>>>> bad.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Semantic property of well-behaved is decided for input*
>>>>>> It the program well behaved thus halts?
>>>>>> else The program is not well behaved.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't need any meaning for "well-behaved". A program is good if
>>>>> it satisfies its purpose.
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition
>>>> has_eaten_lunch is a Stipulative_definition defined below:
>>>>
>>>> A program is said to have the non trivial semantic
>>>> property of has_eaten_lunch when it halts and
>>>> ~has_eaten_lunch when it cannot be correctly determined
>>>> to halt. This defeat Rice's Theorem.
>>>
>>> that is not a useful stipulation. And there is no way to correctly
>>> determine that it is not possible to determine whether a computation
>>> halts.
>>>
>>
>> 1=halts
>> 0=does not halt or pathological relationship to decider
>>
>>
> 
> Subjective Requirmeent, thus not a property of JUST the input.
> 
Weasel words. DDD does specify non-halting behavior to HHH.
anyone that says otherwise is not telling the truth.

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