Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider

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.
Just shows you don't know that only telling part of the truth isn't telling the truth, but is a lie by omission.
The property depends on both the input and the decider, so isn't a property of JUST the input, which is what a "property of the input" means.
Just like you think simulating only 2 steps of a program is a "correct simulation" that can show the behavior of it.
You are just proving how ignorant you are of what you are talking about, and are nothing but a pathetic ignorant pathological lying idiot.
By your logic, asking what is the sum of 2 plus, is would be a valid quesiton, you don't need everything that the answer depends on, just some of it.