Liste des Groupes | Revenir à c theory |
On Sun, 2025-05-11 at 17:30 -0500, olcott wrote:If we want to prevent this kind of denial of serviceOn 5/11/2025 5:11 PM, wij wrote:But, according to POOH, if D going to eat up network resources, it have toOn Sun, 2025-05-11 at 17:00 -0500, olcott wrote:>
[cut]>>ZFC corrected the error in set theory so that>
it could resolve Russell's Paradox. The original
set theory has now called naive set theory.
>
I corrected the error of the HP that expects
HHH to report on behavior that is different
than the behavior that its input actually
specifies.
Specificly, "Halt(D)=1 iff D() halts" is an error?
And it should expect: Halt(D)=1 iff POOH(D)=1 (correct problem)?
>
Yes that is an error because the behavior that
the input to HHH(DDD) specifies is the behavior
that HHH must report on.
If so, how do we know a given function e.g. D, halts or not by giving it to H,
i.e. H(D)? Wrong question (according to you)?
H and D is too vague and ambiguous.
We know that the input to HHH(DDD) specifies
a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>
We know that the input to HHH1(DDD) specifies
a halting sequence of configurations.
>Instead, every time we want to know whether D halts or not,>
When we intentionally define an input to attempt
to thwart a specific termination analyzer THIS DOES
CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR.
>
If we let people run uploaded programs on our
network we need to know if these programs are
going to halt.
>
Unless HHH(DDD) rejects its input as non-halting
HHH will continue to eat up network resources.
happen when we run POOH(D), because you said D's halting property only
valid to H.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.