Sujet : Re: A third line of cancer treatment reversed the growth of the right paracaval lymph node
De : richard (at) *nospam* damon-family.org (Richard Damon)
Groupes : comp.theoryDate : 07. Feb 2025, 03:21:28
Autres entêtes
Organisation : i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID : <6f15178eda69b13fae9cbfef29acad05c9c6aeb3@i2pn2.org>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
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.
…