Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker

Am Thu, 16 May 2024 22:29:14 -0400 schrieb Richard Damon:

On 5/16/24 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:

On 5/16/2024 5:42 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-15 15:06:26 +0000, olcott said:

On 5/15/2024 3:06 AM, Mikko wrote:

On 2024-05-14 14:32:26 +0000, olcott said:

I refer to transitioning through a specific state to indicate a
specific halt status value, for Turing Machines.

>
That does not satisfy the usual definition of "halt decider".

 
Yet it <is> an incremental improvement over both YES and NO are the
wrong answer for input D. YES <is> the correct answer and H can not SAY
this answer in the conventional way.
 

However, we could accept that as a solution to the halting problem if
one could prove that there is a Turing machine that can indicate
halting or non-halting that way for all computations.
>

Refuting the HP pathological program/input pair is the the full scope
of my theory of computation work. Even without my POD24 diagnosis I
would have no time to verify this against an infinite set of programs.

 
And you don't even get that one right.
 

Validation of POD24 as a robust early clinical end point of poor
survival in FL from 5225 patients on 13 clinical trials
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/

 
Yep, perhaps some day soon we will be rid of your lies.

That’s low.
Your continuous cries of „liar” aren’t any better than Peter’s spam.

--
joes