Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: A third line of cancer treatment reversed the growth of the right
 paracaval lymph node
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2025 21:02:15 -0600
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 57
Message-ID: <vo3t3n$37kcg$1@dont-email.me>
References: <vnumf8$24cq0$1@dont-email.me>
 <vnv4tf$2a40b$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vnvv32$2e9m1$1@dont-email.me>
 <vo2pd4$31nli$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vo2us8$32kg8$1@dont-email.me>
 <228a9804d6919149bac728ccf08134ed90db121e@i2pn2.org>
 <vo3cf0$35449$1@dont-email.me>
 <6f15178eda69b13fae9cbfef29acad05c9c6aeb3@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2025 04:02:24 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b3d2bc3b1177d098b76b3951d2beb1ca";
	logging-data="3395984"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18T+CodSG1Q4m+qDppuCHJG"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:KUVzdlElmapcsXsMUXlB+X/rwk8=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 250206-4, 2/6/2025), Outbound message
Content-Language: en-US
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
In-Reply-To: <6f15178eda69b13fae9cbfef29acad05c9c6aeb3@i2pn2.org>
Bytes: 3738

On 2/6/2025 8:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 2/6/25 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 2/6/2025 1:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 2/6/25 1:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 2/6/2025 10:52 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>> Am 05.02.2025 um 16:11 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 2/5/2025 1:44 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 05.02.2025 um 04:38 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> This treatment does not typically last very long and
>>>>>>>> will be immediately followed by a riskier fourth line
>>>>>>>> of treatment that has an initial success rate much higher
>>>>>>>> than its non progression mortality rate.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Halting problem solved !
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halting problem proof input does specify non-halting
>>>>>> behavior to its decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/ 
>>>>>> publication/369971402_Simulating_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>>
>>>>> LOOOOOOOOL
>>>>
>>>> Anyone that understands the C programming language
>>>> sufficiently well (thus not confused by the unreachable
>>>> "if" statement) correctly understands that DD simulated
>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own return instruction.
>>>>
>>>
>>> And anyone that understand the halting problem knows that isn't the 
>>> question being asked. The quesiton you NEED to ask is will the 
>>> program described by the input halt when run?
>>>
>>> Since you start off with the wrong question, you logic is just faulty.
>>>
>>
>> Everyone that thinks my question is incorrect is wrong.
>> It has always been a mathematical mapping from finite
>> strings to behaviors. That people do not comprehend this
>> shows the shallowness of the depth of the learned-by-rote
>> (lack of) understanding.
>>
> 
> No, you are just incorreect as you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> Yes, it is a mapping of the string to the behavior, and that mapping is 
> DEFINED to be the halting behavior of the program the string describes.
> 

No this is incorrect. The input finite string specifies
(not merely describes) non halting behavior to its decider.

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