Re: Unpartial Halt Deciders

On 4/18/25 11:52 PM, olcott wrote:

On 4/18/2025 2:32 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> writes:

On Fri, 18 Apr 2025 12:25:36 -0700, Keith Thompson wrote:

Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> writes:

I, aka Mr Flibble, have created a new computer science term, the
"Unpartial Halt Decider".  It is a Halt Decider over the domain of all
program-input pairs excluding pathological input (a manifestation of
the self referencial category error).

[...]
>
Do you have a rigorous definition of "pathological input"?
>
Is there an algorithm to determine whether a given input is
"pathological" or not?
>
I could define an is_prime() function like this:
>
     bool is_prime(int n) {
         return n >= 3 && n % 2 == 1;
         // returns true for odd numbers >= 3, false for all others
     }
>
I'll just say that odd numbers that are not prime are pathological
input, so I don't have to deal with them.

>
Pathological input:
>
Self-referencial to the decider.

>
OK.
>
Do you have a *rigorous* definition of "pathological input"?
>
Is there an algorithm to determine whether a given input is
"pathological" or not?
>

 int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}
 Patterns isomorphic to the above when simulated by HHH.
 

Examples are not definitions.
And the problem is that the above example is itself a category error for the problem, as the DD provided above isn't a complete program, as it doesn't include the code for HHH as required, and when you include Halt7.c as part of the input, your HHH isn't a seperate program of its own, and thus doesn't have a Turing Complete range of inputs it can accept.
Sorry, you are just showing you don't understand what it means to DEFINE something.