1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by an

    From olcott@21:1/5 to Richard Damon on Sun Aug 4 20:07:58 2024
    On 8/4/2024 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 8/4/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
    On 8/4/2024 6:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
    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.


    (b) Cannot possibly exist unless it is a property
    of the input.



    Then it can not exist, becuase it depends on more than the input.


    void DDD()
    {
    HHH(DDD);
    return;
    }

    You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly
    emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
    instruction.

    Maybe EE and a masters in EE just doesn't teach
    hardly anything about actual programming.

    I would hate to call you dishonest when it is just
    ordinary ignorance. It can't really be just ordinary
    ignorance when it feigns expertise.

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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)