Re: A third line of cancer treatment reversed the growth of the right paracaval lymph node

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.