Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Damon Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 19:25:40 -0400 Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org) Message-ID: References: <0ec454016dab6f6d6dd5580f5d0eea49569293d8@i2pn2.org> <6ec9812649b0f4a042edd1e9a1c14b93e7b9a16b@i2pn2.org> <476303ac27d94a26dd563468f0ce10407e60034c@i2pn2.org> <5ea40e29a4d8e4014f485fdfda743b95148a961a@i2pn2.org> <7f796739dcafa335aff88a52af5e458d1253625b@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 4 Aug 2024 23:25:40 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: i2pn2.org; logging-data="1459495"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org"; posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg"; User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5274 Lines: 108 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. Just shows you don't know that only telling part of the truth isn't telling the truth, but is a lie by omission. The property depends on both the input and the decider, so isn't a property of JUST the input, which is what a "property of the input" means. Just like you think simulating only 2 steps of a program is a "correct simulation" that can show the behavior of it. You are just proving how ignorant you are of what you are talking about, and are nothing but a pathetic ignorant pathological lying idiot. By your logic, asking what is the sum of 2 plus, is would be a valid quesiton, you don't need everything that the answer depends on, just some of it.