Sujet : Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider (Which isn't a valid criteria for a decider)
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 08. Aug 2024, 02:03:06
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <9f2872b70003930dccf15ebab34c0572dcfd3dd5@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 8/7/24 9:12 AM, olcott wrote:
On 8/7/2024 1:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
On 2024-08-04 19:33:36 +0000, olcott said:
>
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
>
Conventionally the value 0 is used for "no" (for example, no errors)
and value 1 for "yes". If there are different "yes" results other
A Conventional halt decider is 1 for halts and 0 for does not halt.
0 also means input has pathological relationship to decider.
In other words 1 means good input and 0 means bad input.
Except that there is nothing "bad" about the input, just that the decider it uses will get the wrong wnswer.
Also, that criteria isn't a valid criteria, as it is subjective, having a different answer when the same input is given to different decideres.
So, all you are doing is admitting that you have not been doing the problem you claime to have been doing, and thus have been a LIAR for years, and don't even know what a valid decision problem is.
numbers in addition to 1 can be used. For example, for the question
"is there anu errors?" the number may identify the error. For a
partial halt decider the best values are
-1 = does not halt
0 = not determined
1 = halts.
>
In C the value 0 is interpreted as false and every other number,
positive or negative, is interpreted as true in every context
where a boolean value is expected.
>
I have known that since K&R was the standard.
I met Bjarne Stroustrup we he went around the country
promoting his new C++ language at the local universities.
He was a tee shirt and blue jeans kind of guy.
So, why do you not know that when DDD calls HHH, that the code in HHH is part of the code in the program created by DDD?
That has ALWAYS been true.
Date | Sujet | # | | Auteur |
4 Aug 24 | Defining a correct halt decider | 67 | | olcott |
4 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halt decider | 45 | | Richard Damon |
4 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 44 | | olcott |
4 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 43 | | Richard Damon |
4 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 42 | | olcott |
4 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 20 | | Richard Damon |
4 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 19 | | olcott |
4 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 18 | | Richard Damon |
4 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 17 | | olcott |
5 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 16 | | Richard Damon |
5 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 15 | | olcott |
5 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 14 | | Richard Damon |
5 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 13 | | olcott |
5 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 12 | | Richard Damon |
5 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 11 | | olcott |
5 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 10 | | Richard Damon |
5 Aug 24 | You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction | 9 | | olcott |
5 Aug 24 | Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction | 8 | | Richard Damon |
5 Aug 24 | Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction | 7 | | olcott |
5 Aug 24 | Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction | 6 | | Richard Damon |
5 Aug 24 | Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction | 5 | | olcott |
5 Aug 24 | Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction | 4 | | Richard Damon |
5 Aug 24 | Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction | 3 | | wij |
5 Aug 24 | Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction | 2 | | olcott |
6 Aug 24 | Re: Olcott still seems too dishonest to admit that his HHH doesn't correctly emulate DDD | 1 | | Richard Damon |
7 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 21 | | Mikko |
7 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 20 | | olcott |
8 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider (Which isn't a valid criteria for a decider) | 1 | | Richard Damon |
8 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 18 | | Mikko |
8 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 17 | | olcott |
8 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 4 | | Python |
8 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 3 | | olcott |
9 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 1 | | Richard Damon |
9 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 1 | | Python |
9 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 1 | | Richard Damon |
9 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 11 | | Mikko |
9 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 10 | | olcott |
10 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 1 | | Richard Damon |
10 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 8 | | Mikko |
10 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 7 | | olcott |
10 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 3 | | Richard Damon |
10 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 2 | | olcott |
10 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 1 | | Richard Damon |
11 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 3 | | Mikko |
11 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 2 | | olcott |
11 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halting decidability decider | 1 | | Richard Damon |
5 Aug 24 | Re: Defining a correct halt decider | 21 | | Mikko |
5 Aug 24 | I call it a halting decidability decider | 20 | | olcott |
5 Aug 24 | Re: I call it a halting decidability decider | 14 | | Python |
5 Aug 24 | Re: I call it a halting decidability decider | 13 | | olcott |
6 Aug 24 | Re: I call it a halting decidability decider, and thus isn't actually a computability decider. | 5 | | Richard Damon |
6 Aug 24 | Re: I call it a halting decidability decider, and thus isn't actually a computability decider. | 4 | | olcott |
6 Aug 24 | Re: I call it a halting decidability decider, and thus isn't actually a computability decider. | 3 | | Richard Damon |
6 Aug 24 | Re: I call it a halting decidability decider, and thus isn't actually a computability decider. | 2 | | olcott |
6 Aug 24 | Re: I call it a halting decidability decider, and thus isn't actually a computability decider. | 1 | | Richard Damon |
7 Aug 24 | Re: I call it a halting decidability decider | 7 | | Mikko |
7 Aug 24 | HHH decides a non-trivial semantic property of its input | 6 | | olcott |
8 Aug 24 | Re: HHH decides a trivial semantic non-property of its input | 1 | | Richard Damon |
8 Aug 24 | Re: HHH decides a non-trivial semantic property of its input | 3 | | Mikko |
8 Aug 24 | Re: HHH decides a non-trivial semantic property of its input | 2 | | olcott |
9 Aug 24 | Re: HHH decides a non-trivial semantic property of its input | 1 | | Richard Damon |
8 Aug 24 | Re: HHH decides a trivial non-semantic non-property of its input | 1 | | Richard Damon |
6 Aug 24 | Re: I call it a halting decidability decider, and thus doesn't say anything about the halting problem | 1 | | Richard Damon |
7 Aug 24 | Re: I call it a halting decidability decider | 4 | | Mikko |
7 Aug 24 | Re: I call it a halting decidability decider | 3 | | olcott |
8 Aug 24 | Re: I call it a halting decidability decider | 1 | | Richard Damon |
8 Aug 24 | Re: I call it a halting decidability decider | 1 | | Mikko |