Re: You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own ,"return" instruction

On 8/4/24 9:07 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/4/2024 7:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/4/24 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/4/2024 6:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/4/24 6:57 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/4/2024 5:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/4/24 6:15 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/4/2024 5:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/4/24 5:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/4/2024 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/4/24 5:05 PM, olcott wrote:

On 8/4/2024 3:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

On 8/4/24 3:33 PM, olcott wrote:

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
>
>

>
Which isn't halt deciding, so you are just admitting you have been lying about working on the Halting Problem.
>

>
It does seem to refute Rice.
>

>
Nope, because your criteria in not a semantic property of the INPUT (or it is trivial, as 0 is always a correct answer).
>

>
It is only allowed to answer 0 when when
(a) The input does not halt
(b) The input has a pathological relationship with the decider.
>
>

>
Which means it is not a property of the INPUT, but the input and the decider.
>

>
It is a property of the input.
(a) The input does
(b) The input has
>

>
But not of JUST the input.
>

>
It is a semantic property of the input.
I don't care if you lie about it.
>

>
Nope, because it depends on the decider.
>

>
(b) Cannot possibly exist unless it is a property
of the input.
>
>

>
Then it can not exist, becuase it depends on more than the input.
>

 void DDD()
{
   HHH(DDD);
   return;
}
 You still seem too dishonest to admit that DDD correctly
emulated by any HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return"
instruction.

No, I admit that *IF* HHH does correctly (and thus completely without aborting) emulated its input, then THAT DDD and ONLY that DDD will be non-halting.
This means that EVERY OTHER HHH is just wrong, as the DDD that it is given DOES halt when run, but HHH does emulate long enough to see that because in INCORRECTLY aborts its emulation, confusing the input it was actually given with the input given to the non-aborting HHH, because it thinks that it is that non-aborting HHH itself, but that it can still abort.
What seems to be your problem is that you don't understand what a program is, and that only actual programs have programtic behavior.
You also don't seem to understand that you can't assume that the impossible happens, that just proves your own insanity.

 Maybe EE and a masters in EE just doesn't teach
hardly anything about actual programming.

I learned a lot, but it seems you don't understand the basic definition that DDD without HHH provided IS NOT A PROGRAM.
That your logic is based on the lie that DDD doesn't include HHH, just proves your utter stupidity.

 I would hate to call you dishonest when it is just
ordinary ignorance. It can't really be just ordinary
ignorance when it feigns expertise.
 

Nope, it is your PATHOLOGICAL IGNORANCE that causes the problem, your trying to blame others for your own stupidity just proves your state as a pathetic ignorant pathologically lying idiot with a reckless disregard for the truth, who even ADMITS that he doesn't have a basis for his claims.
Sorry, you have just killed your reputation and earned your place in HELL.