Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connectionsPath: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Richard Heathfield Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Halting Problem: What Constitutes Pathological Input Date: Mon, 5 May 2025 23:50:17 +0100 Organization: Fix this later Lines: 42 Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Tue, 06 May 2025 00:50:23 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4489552a91c35915dbf980ce94c452ca"; logging-data="1581433"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18X2mg9H5eAt/eFivVHOv+I14pbKEzihk4h8r+plc+jAg==" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:lphDGU7nOAeQDbM253qdidwyhy4= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-GB Bytes: 3174 On 05/05/2025 23:02, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Mon, 05 May 2025 22:51:12 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> and I suspect you are being dishonest and know this already. >> >> On the contrary, when you talk about 'pathological input' you use the >> term to describe uncomputable mappings between programs and termination >> statuses, so you're rather closer to the truth than you perhaps >> intended. >> >> To put it in terms you might be able to understand better: >> >> Turing hypothesised the existence of a universal halt decider, >> but then showed that were such a decider to exist it would be possible >> to use it to create a 'pathological input' that it couldn't decide, so >> it follows that no decider can possibly be universal. /At best/, it can >> decide for all non-pathological inputs. > > I agree with that final statement: > > "/At best/, it can decide for all non-pathological inputs." > > However you and others have NOT made that statement in this forum up until > this point; I wonder why that is? Learn by rote intellectual dishonesty > perhaps? You're quick to suggest dishonesty, aren't you? But no, it's not dishonesty. My description (above) is a perfectly vanilla description of the standard halting problem, except that instead of 'undecidable' I wrote 'pathological'. I deduce that you simply don't understand standard terminology. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within