On 8/4/24 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:>>
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.
No, I admit that *IF* HHH does correctly (and thus completely without aborting) emulated its input, then THAT DDD and ONLY that DDD will be non-halting.
This means that EVERY OTHER HHH is just wrong, as the DDD that it is
given DOES halt when run, but HHH does emulate long enough to see that because in INCORRECTLY aborts its emulation, confusing the input it was actually given with the input given to the non-aborting HHH, because it thinks that it is that non-aborting HHH itself, but that it can still
abort.
What seems to be your problem is that you don't understand what a
program is, and that only actual programs have programtic behavior.
You also don't seem to understand that you can't assume that the
impossible happens, that just proves your own insanity.
Maybe EE and a masters in EE just doesn't teach
hardly anything about actual programming.
I learned a lot, but it seems you don't understand the basic definition
that DDD without HHH provided IS NOT A PROGRAM.
That your logic is based on the lie that DDD doesn't include HHH, just
proves your utter stupidity.
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.
Nope, it is your PATHOLOGICAL IGNORANCE that causes the problem, your
trying to blame others for your own stupidity just proves your state as
a pathetic ignorant pathologically lying idiot with a reckless disregard
for the truth, who even ADMITS that he doesn't have a basis for his claims.
Sorry, you have just killed your reputation and earned your place in HELL.
On 8/4/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/4/24 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:>>
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.
No, I admit that *IF* HHH does correctly (and thus completely without
aborting) emulated its input, then THAT DDD and ONLY that DDD will be
non-halting.
See there?
DDD correctly emulated by any HHH that can possibly exist
cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction and every
C expert knows this.
This means that EVERY OTHER HHH is just wrong, as the DDD that it is
given DOES halt when run, but HHH does emulate long enough to see that
because in INCORRECTLY aborts its emulation, confusing the input it
was actually given with the input given to the non-aborting HHH,
because it thinks that it is that non-aborting HHH itself, but that it
can still abort.
What seems to be your problem is that you don't understand what a
program is, and that only actual programs have programtic behavior.
You also don't seem to understand that you can't assume that the
impossible happens, that just proves your own insanity.
Maybe EE and a masters in EE just doesn't teach
hardly anything about actual programming.
I learned a lot, but it seems you don't understand the basic
definition that DDD without HHH provided IS NOT A PROGRAM.
Of course it is not a program.
It is also true that 56 is not an English word.
That seems to clinch it. You are feigning competence with C.
That is much better than sadistic pleasure in denying easily
verified facts. That might get you sent to Hell.
That your logic is based on the lie that DDD doesn't include HHH, just
proves your utter stupidity.
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.
Nope, it is your PATHOLOGICAL IGNORANCE that causes the problem, your
trying to blame others for your own stupidity just proves your state
as a pathetic ignorant pathologically lying idiot with a reckless
disregard for the truth, who even ADMITS that he doesn't have a basis
for his claims.
Sorry, you have just killed your reputation and earned your place in
HELL.
*Feigning competence with C probably would not get you sent to Hell*
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.
On 8/4/24 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/4/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/4/24 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:>>
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.
No, I admit that *IF* HHH does correctly (and thus completely without
aborting) emulated its input, then THAT DDD and ONLY that DDD will be
non-halting.
See there?
DDD correctly emulated by any HHH that can possibly exist
cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction and every
C expert knows this.
But that only apply to the PROGRAM DDD built from an HHH that never aborts.
On 8/4/2024 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/4/24 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/4/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/4/24 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:>>
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.
No, I admit that *IF* HHH does correctly (and thus completely
without aborting) emulated its input, then THAT DDD and ONLY that
DDD will be non-halting.
See there?
DDD correctly emulated by any HHH that can possibly exist
cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction and every
C expert knows this.
But that only apply to the PROGRAM DDD built from an HHH that never
aborts.
No it does not and every C expert knows that it does not.
On Mon, 2024-08-05 at 07:40 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/4/24 11:58 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/4/2024 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/4/24 10:49 PM, olcott wrote:
On 8/4/2024 9:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 8/4/24 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:>>
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.
No, I admit that *IF* HHH does correctly (and thus completely
without aborting) emulated its input, then THAT DDD and ONLY that
DDD will be non-halting.
See there?
DDD correctly emulated by any HHH that can possibly exist
cannot possibly reach its "return" instruction and every
C expert knows this.
But that only apply to the PROGRAM DDD built from an HHH that never
aborts.
No it does not and every C expert knows that it does not.
Really> You have a source for that?
Or is this just another of your "Digonalization" logic claims that you
retracted.
Claims that "every x knows" are just a fallacy, and you should know it,
but are, of course, just to dumb to understand.
Here the problem is you just lie about what "Correctly Emulated" means
for determining the behavior of a program.
Sorry, you are just proving you are a stupid pathetic ignorant
pathological lying idiot with a reckless disregrad for the truth because
you beleive your own lies to the point that you don't even look at the
facts.
Don't know why I am glad to see someone finally to find out olcott is a "pathological liar and idiot".
Save all your time. olcott don't understand the basic "if" logic, that says everything to me. He don't know anything logic.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 158:06:34 |
| Calls: | 10,384 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 14,056 |
| Messages: | 6,416,482 |