Re: Unpartial Halt Deciders

On 4/19/25 2:06 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 13:34:40 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
 

On 4/19/25 8:05 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:

On Sat, 19 Apr 2025 07:55:55 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>

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.

>
Ah, the fundamental mistake you have been making all this time, Damon!
The self-referencial category error doesn't magically disappear by
providing source code rather than a run-time function address to the
decider; you are simply transforming the same input without affecting
the result.
>
/Flibble

>
And WHAT is the category error?  You stil can't show the difference in
CATEGORY between what is allowed and what isn't, and in fact, you can't
even precisely define what is and isn't allowed.
>
Now, you also run into the issue that the "Olcott System" begins with an
actual category error as we do not have the required two seperate
programs of the "Decider" and the "Program to be decided on" given via
representation as the input, as what you want to call that program to be
decided isn't one without including the code of the decider it is using,
and when you do include it, the arguments about no version of the
decider being able to succeed is improper as it must always be that
exact program that we started with, and thus it just FAILS to do a
correct simulation, while a correct simulation of this exact input
(which includes the ORIGINAL decider) will halt.
>
Sorry, YOU are the one stuck with the fundamental mistake, or is it a
funny mental mistake because you don't understand what you are talking
about.

 The category error is extant over the domain of pathological inputs, no
matter what form those inputs take.
 /Flibble

So, what is in it that makes it outside the category?
The problem is you can't actually DEFINE "pathological input" or show that they are a category error.
Remember, the DEFINIED CATEGORY for the domain of a halt decider, is descriptions of PROGRAM / INPUT pairs. This "Pathological Program" was built by allowed operations, and thus *IS* in the category of a Program.
What isn't in the category of a program is a decider that hasn't been actually defined by a deterministic algoritm, but just a step the equivalent of "Get the Right Answer", nor is the input that is being tried to be provided, as it doesn't actually include the code for the decider it uses, so that it will "change" without being changed when you try a different version of the decider (which you try to do in a way not allowed by the theory, you can imagine an alternate machine given the same input, but the input will still be totally the same input, and not morphed by that change).
So, all you are doing is showing that you don't actually understand what you are talking about.
To claim a category error, you have to define what the categories you are talking about are, and why the input isn't in the category it needs to be in.