1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.THEORY

  • Re: A third line of cancer treatment reversed the growth of the right p

    From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Thu Feb 6 14:51:55 2025
    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.

    You are just showing your ignorance of the subject.

    When we add a little computer science to this then we
    know that the input to HHH does not halt.

    No, the program described by the input to HHH does halt if HHH(DDD)
    return 0.

    Thus, that answer can not be the correct answer to the halting problem,
    and all you are doing is proving you are nothing but an ignorant
    pathological lying idiot.


    typedef void (*ptr)();
    int HHH(ptr P);

    int DD()
    {
      int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
      if (Halt_Status)
        HERE: goto HERE;
      return Halt_Status;
    }

    int main()
    {
      HHH(DD);
    }



    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Thu Feb 6 21:21:28 2025
    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.

    That you can't comprend this definition is just the proof of your stupidity.

    That you insist on the wrong definition after being repeated corrected,
    just prove you are a pathological liar who bases their ignorant idea on
    the never-learned ignorance ofg complete stupidity.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Fri Feb 7 07:20:37 2025
    On 2/6/25 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:
    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.


    No, since the definition of "Halting Behavior" is the behavior of the
    progran being run.

    THe fact that HHH, what eer code it is, doesn't get to the end of the
    behavior because it erroneously aborts just makes it wrong.

    Note, an DIFFERENT HHH that doesn't abort, is erroneous becaue now the
    string, which includes the decider it is based on, is of a non-halting
    program, and needs to be aborted.

    Your problem here is you don't understand what a "program" is, and thus
    create a "finite string" that doesn't actually represent that full
    program, and thus is invalid.

    Note, "Programs" are complete units, with no "external" references, and
    thus the input to HHH must include ALL the code of that program, which
    you consistantly fail to do.


    Again, all of this has been told to you MANY times, and you inability to understand it just proves your complete ignorance and stupidity, and a
    total disregard for the truth, making you just a pathologicalica lying
    idiot.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Damon@21:1/5 to olcott on Fri Feb 7 18:56:12 2025
    On 2/7/25 11:26 AM, olcott wrote:
    On 2/7/2025 6:20 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
    On 2/6/25 10:02 PM, olcott wrote:
    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.


    No, since the definition of "Halting Behavior" is the behavior of the
    progran being run.


    It may seem that way to people that have learned-by-rote
    as their only basis. It is actually nothing like that.

    No, that *IS* the definition.


    It is not the behavior that you believe it talks about.
    It is the behavior that the finite string actually specifies.


    Show a definition that supports it;.

    From a reputable sourse.

    Until you do, you are just demonstrating you are just a lying idiot.

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