Sujet : Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 04. Aug 2024, 23:02:39
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <5ea40e29a4d8e4014f485fdfda743b95148a961a@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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.
Thus, it isn't even a property the decider is allowed to be deciding on, as those are properties of JUST the input.
So, again, you are just proving you are fundamentally ignorant of what you are talking about.
It may be a "program specification", but it is not the specification for a "x decider", as an x decider needs to be computing the mapping "x", which is a function of just its input.
…