A termination analyzer is an ordinary computer program that is supposed
to determine whether or not its input program will ever stop running or
gets stuck in infinite execution.
When a program input has been specifically defined to confuse a
termination analyzer it is correct to determine that the program
behavior is malevolent.
Prior to my work nothing could be done about inputs having a
pathological relationship to their termination analyzer. Prior to my
work Rice's theorem prevented this pathological relationship from being recognized.
The pathological relationship is when an input program D is defined to
do the opposite of whatever its termination analyzer H says it will do.
If H says that D will stop running D runs an infinite loop. If H says
that D will never stop running, D immediately stops running.
When H(D,D) returns 0 this means that the input does not halt or the
input has pathological behavior that would otherwise cause the
termination analyzer to not halt. This means that the program has either
a non-termination bug or the program has malevolent behavior.
This reasoning completely overcomes the one key objection to my work
that has persisted for two years.
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
On 6/15/23 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
A termination analyzer is an ordinary computer program that is supposed
to determine whether or not its input program will ever stop running or
gets stuck in infinite execution.
Right, THE PROGRAM, not the simulation of the program by the analyzer.
When a program input has been specifically defined to confuse a
termination analyzer it is correct to determine that the program
behavior is malevolent.
Nope, since the PROGRAM stops, the only correct answer (if you analyser
is supposed to be accurate) is to say it stops.
If you are allowing FALSE answers,
Prior to my work nothing could be done about inputs having a
pathological relationship to their termination analyzer. Prior to my
work Rice's theorem prevented this pathological relationship from being
recognized.
Because there was no need to even try to define "pathological inputs",
as the deciders are defined to work for ALL input.
The pathological relationship is when an input program D is defined to
do the opposite of whatever its termination analyzer H says it will do.
If H says that D will stop running D runs an infinite loop. If H says
that D will never stop running, D immediately stops running.
Right, so H is just wrong.
When H(D,D) returns 0 this means that the input does not halt or the
input has pathological behavior that would otherwise cause the
termination analyzer to not halt. This means that the program has either
a non-termination bug or the program has malevolent behavior.
But Malevolent behaior is ALLOWED by the problem, so H is just wrong.
This reasoning completely overcomes the one key objection to my work
that has persisted for two years.
Nope, just proves that you don't understand what requirements mean.
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Since D(D) Halts, the ONLY correct answer for H(D,D) is Halting, so the
fact it says non-halting says it is NOT a correct Halt Decider.
Maybe it is a correct POOP decider, but then you need to find a use for
your POOP.
On 6/15/2023 11:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
A termination analyzer is an ordinary computer program that is supposed
to determine whether or not its input program will ever stop running or
gets stuck in infinite execution.
Right, THE PROGRAM, not the simulation of the program by the analyzer.
When a program input has been specifically defined to confuse a
termination analyzer it is correct to determine that the program
behavior is malevolent.
Nope, since the PROGRAM stops, the only correct answer (if you
analyser is supposed to be accurate) is to say it stops.
If you are allowing FALSE answers,
Prior to my work nothing could be done about inputs having a
pathological relationship to their termination analyzer. Prior to my
work Rice's theorem prevented this pathological relationship from being
recognized.
Because there was no need to even try to define "pathological inputs",
as the deciders are defined to work for ALL input.
The pathological relationship is when an input program D is defined to
do the opposite of whatever its termination analyzer H says it will do.
If H says that D will stop running D runs an infinite loop. If H says
that D will never stop running, D immediately stops running.
Right, so H is just wrong.
When H(D,D) returns 0 this means that the input does not halt or the
input has pathological behavior that would otherwise cause the
termination analyzer to not halt. This means that the program has either >>> a non-termination bug or the program has malevolent behavior.
But Malevolent behaior is ALLOWED by the problem, so H is just wrong.
This reasoning completely overcomes the one key objection to my work
that has persisted for two years.
Nope, just proves that you don't understand what requirements mean.
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Since D(D) Halts, the ONLY correct answer for H(D,D) is Halting, so
the fact it says non-halting says it is NOT a correct Halt Decider.
Maybe it is a correct POOP decider, but then you need to find a use
for your POOP.
*THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THIS VERIFIED FACT*
H returns 0 indicating that:
(a) D does not halt
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H that would prevent H from
halting.
The algorithm used by H provides a way for DoS detectors and termination analyzers to reject inputs having the halting problem's pathological relationship to H.
On 6/15/23 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 11:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
A termination analyzer is an ordinary computer program that is supposed >>>> to determine whether or not its input program will ever stop running or >>>> gets stuck in infinite execution.
Right, THE PROGRAM, not the simulation of the program by the analyzer.
When a program input has been specifically defined to confuse a
termination analyzer it is correct to determine that the program
behavior is malevolent.
Nope, since the PROGRAM stops, the only correct answer (if you
analyser is supposed to be accurate) is to say it stops.
If you are allowing FALSE answers,
Prior to my work nothing could be done about inputs having a
pathological relationship to their termination analyzer. Prior to my
work Rice's theorem prevented this pathological relationship from being >>>> recognized.
Because there was no need to even try to define "pathological
inputs", as the deciders are defined to work for ALL input.
The pathological relationship is when an input program D is defined to >>>> do the opposite of whatever its termination analyzer H says it will do. >>>> If H says that D will stop running D runs an infinite loop. If H says
that D will never stop running, D immediately stops running.
Right, so H is just wrong.
When H(D,D) returns 0 this means that the input does not halt or the
input has pathological behavior that would otherwise cause the
termination analyzer to not halt. This means that the program has
either
a non-termination bug or the program has malevolent behavior.
But Malevolent behaior is ALLOWED by the problem, so H is just wrong.
This reasoning completely overcomes the one key objection to my work
that has persisted for two years.
Nope, just proves that you don't understand what requirements mean.
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Since D(D) Halts, the ONLY correct answer for H(D,D) is Halting, so
the fact it says non-halting says it is NOT a correct Halt Decider.
Maybe it is a correct POOP decider, but then you need to find a use
for your POOP.
*THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THIS VERIFIED FACT*
H returns 0 indicating that:
(a) D does not halt
Except that D does Halt, and you admit it, thus your (a) is a VERIFIED LIE.
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H that would prevent H from
halting.
Which is an issue with H, not D. H, is REQUIRED to be able to handle
*ALL* inputs, so an input that gives H a problem is a problem with H.
The algorithm used by H provides a way for DoS detectors and termination
analyzers to reject inputs having the halting problem's pathological
relationship to H.
And that same logic says that Trump actually won the election, as the
actual votes don't actually matter.
From the DEFINITION of the Halt Problem, if M(d) Halts, then H(M,d)
needs to say Halting.
Since D(D) Halts, that means M(D,D) MUST return halting to be correct,
and it doesn't and any claim that another answer is correct is just a LIE.
The fact that you keep repeating this lie shows that you are just a
pathetic hypocritical ignorant pathological lying idiot.
YOU FAIL.
On 6/15/2023 2:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 11:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
A termination analyzer is an ordinary computer program that is
supposed
to determine whether or not its input program will ever stop
running or
gets stuck in infinite execution.
Right, THE PROGRAM, not the simulation of the program by the analyzer. >>>>
When a program input has been specifically defined to confuse a
termination analyzer it is correct to determine that the program
behavior is malevolent.
Nope, since the PROGRAM stops, the only correct answer (if you
analyser is supposed to be accurate) is to say it stops.
If you are allowing FALSE answers,
Prior to my work nothing could be done about inputs having a
pathological relationship to their termination analyzer. Prior to my >>>>> work Rice's theorem prevented this pathological relationship from
being
recognized.
Because there was no need to even try to define "pathological
inputs", as the deciders are defined to work for ALL input.
The pathological relationship is when an input program D is defined to >>>>> do the opposite of whatever its termination analyzer H says it will
do.
If H says that D will stop running D runs an infinite loop. If H says >>>>> that D will never stop running, D immediately stops running.
Right, so H is just wrong.
When H(D,D) returns 0 this means that the input does not halt or the >>>>> input has pathological behavior that would otherwise cause the
termination analyzer to not halt. This means that the program has
either
a non-termination bug or the program has malevolent behavior.
But Malevolent behaior is ALLOWED by the problem, so H is just wrong.
This reasoning completely overcomes the one key objection to my work >>>>> that has persisted for two years.
Nope, just proves that you don't understand what requirements mean.
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Since D(D) Halts, the ONLY correct answer for H(D,D) is Halting, so
the fact it says non-halting says it is NOT a correct Halt Decider.
Maybe it is a correct POOP decider, but then you need to find a use
for your POOP.
*THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THIS VERIFIED FACT*
H returns 0 indicating that:
(a) D does not halt
Except that D does Halt, and you admit it, thus your (a) is a VERIFIED
LIE.
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H that would prevent H from
halting.
Which is an issue with H, not D. H, is REQUIRED to be able to handle
*ALL* inputs, so an input that gives H a problem is a problem with H.
The algorithm used by H provides a way for DoS detectors and termination >>> analyzers to reject inputs having the halting problem's pathological
relationship to H.
And that same logic says that Trump actually won the election, as the
actual votes don't actually matter.
From the DEFINITION of the Halt Problem, if M(d) Halts, then H(M,d)
needs to say Halting.
Since D(D) Halts, that means M(D,D) MUST return halting to be correct,
and it doesn't and any claim that another answer is correct is just a
LIE.
The fact that you keep repeating this lie shows that you are just a
pathetic hypocritical ignorant pathological lying idiot.
YOU FAIL.
We can construe H as defeating Rice's theorem in that H
correctly reports that input D has a [termination issue]
where [termination issue] is defined as:
(a) D does not halt
OR
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H
On 6/15/23 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 2:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 11:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
A termination analyzer is an ordinary computer program that is
supposed
to determine whether or not its input program will ever stop
running or
gets stuck in infinite execution.
Right, THE PROGRAM, not the simulation of the program by the analyzer. >>>>>
When a program input has been specifically defined to confuse a
termination analyzer it is correct to determine that the program
behavior is malevolent.
Nope, since the PROGRAM stops, the only correct answer (if you
analyser is supposed to be accurate) is to say it stops.
If you are allowing FALSE answers,
Prior to my work nothing could be done about inputs having a
pathological relationship to their termination analyzer. Prior to my >>>>>> work Rice's theorem prevented this pathological relationship from
being
recognized.
Because there was no need to even try to define "pathological
inputs", as the deciders are defined to work for ALL input.
The pathological relationship is when an input program D is
defined to
do the opposite of whatever its termination analyzer H says it
will do.
If H says that D will stop running D runs an infinite loop. If H says >>>>>> that D will never stop running, D immediately stops running.
Right, so H is just wrong.
When H(D,D) returns 0 this means that the input does not halt or the >>>>>> input has pathological behavior that would otherwise cause the
termination analyzer to not halt. This means that the program has
either
a non-termination bug or the program has malevolent behavior.
But Malevolent behaior is ALLOWED by the problem, so H is just wrong. >>>>>
This reasoning completely overcomes the one key objection to my work >>>>>> that has persisted for two years.
Nope, just proves that you don't understand what requirements mean.
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Since D(D) Halts, the ONLY correct answer for H(D,D) is Halting, so
the fact it says non-halting says it is NOT a correct Halt Decider.
Maybe it is a correct POOP decider, but then you need to find a use
for your POOP.
*THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THIS VERIFIED FACT*
H returns 0 indicating that:
(a) D does not halt
Except that D does Halt, and you admit it, thus your (a) is a
VERIFIED LIE.
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H that would prevent H from
halting.
Which is an issue with H, not D. H, is REQUIRED to be able to handle
*ALL* inputs, so an input that gives H a problem is a problem with H.
The algorithm used by H provides a way for DoS detectors and
termination
analyzers to reject inputs having the halting problem's pathological
relationship to H.
And that same logic says that Trump actually won the election, as the
actual votes don't actually matter.
From the DEFINITION of the Halt Problem, if M(d) Halts, then H(M,d)
needs to say Halting.
Since D(D) Halts, that means M(D,D) MUST return halting to be
correct, and it doesn't and any claim that another answer is correct
is just a LIE.
The fact that you keep repeating this lie shows that you are just a
pathetic hypocritical ignorant pathological lying idiot.
YOU FAIL.
We can construe H as defeating Rice's theorem in that H
correctly reports that input D has a [termination issue]
where [termination issue] is defined as:
(a) D does not halt
OR
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H
But D doesn't have a termination issue, because H DOES abort its
simulation of it and returns 0 to it so it stops.
Until you can show how that doesn't happen in the actual execution of D
(not just via the INCORRECT simulation of H) you are just lying.
Trying to define "iteration issue" in that matter means it isn't
halting, and thus your H isn't a Halt Decider so not a counter to the
proof.
You are also just showing you don't understand Rice's Theorem. Note, the Halting Problem pathological case is NOT given as a proof of Rices's
theorem, so your proof doesn't actually mean anything.
You are just proving you are a failure.
On 6/15/2023 4:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 2:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 11:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
A termination analyzer is an ordinary computer program that is
supposed
to determine whether or not its input program will ever stop
running or
gets stuck in infinite execution.
Right, THE PROGRAM, not the simulation of the program by the
analyzer.
When a program input has been specifically defined to confuse a
termination analyzer it is correct to determine that the program >>>>>>> behavior is malevolent.
Nope, since the PROGRAM stops, the only correct answer (if you
analyser is supposed to be accurate) is to say it stops.
If you are allowing FALSE answers,
Prior to my work nothing could be done about inputs having a
pathological relationship to their termination analyzer. Prior to my >>>>>>> work Rice's theorem prevented this pathological relationship from >>>>>>> being
recognized.
Because there was no need to even try to define "pathological
inputs", as the deciders are defined to work for ALL input.
The pathological relationship is when an input program D is
defined to
do the opposite of whatever its termination analyzer H says it
will do.
If H says that D will stop running D runs an infinite loop. If H >>>>>>> says
that D will never stop running, D immediately stops running.
Right, so H is just wrong.
When H(D,D) returns 0 this means that the input does not halt or the >>>>>>> input has pathological behavior that would otherwise cause the
termination analyzer to not halt. This means that the program has >>>>>>> either
a non-termination bug or the program has malevolent behavior.
But Malevolent behaior is ALLOWED by the problem, so H is just wrong. >>>>>>
This reasoning completely overcomes the one key objection to my work >>>>>>> that has persisted for two years.
Nope, just proves that you don't understand what requirements mean. >>>>>>
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Since D(D) Halts, the ONLY correct answer for H(D,D) is Halting,
so the fact it says non-halting says it is NOT a correct Halt
Decider.
Maybe it is a correct POOP decider, but then you need to find a
use for your POOP.
*THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THIS VERIFIED FACT*
H returns 0 indicating that:
(a) D does not halt
Except that D does Halt, and you admit it, thus your (a) is a
VERIFIED LIE.
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H that would prevent H
from halting.
Which is an issue with H, not D. H, is REQUIRED to be able to handle
*ALL* inputs, so an input that gives H a problem is a problem with H.
The algorithm used by H provides a way for DoS detectors and
termination
analyzers to reject inputs having the halting problem's pathological >>>>> relationship to H.
And that same logic says that Trump actually won the election, as
the actual votes don't actually matter.
From the DEFINITION of the Halt Problem, if M(d) Halts, then H(M,d)
needs to say Halting.
Since D(D) Halts, that means M(D,D) MUST return halting to be
correct, and it doesn't and any claim that another answer is correct
is just a LIE.
The fact that you keep repeating this lie shows that you are just a
pathetic hypocritical ignorant pathological lying idiot.
YOU FAIL.
We can construe H as defeating Rice's theorem in that H
correctly reports that input D has a [termination issue]
where [termination issue] is defined as:
(a) D does not halt
OR
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H
But D doesn't have a termination issue, because H DOES abort its
simulation of it and returns 0 to it so it stops.
Until you can show how that doesn't happen in the actual execution of
D (not just via the INCORRECT simulation of H) you are just lying.
Trying to define "iteration issue" in that matter means it isn't
halting, and thus your H isn't a Halt Decider so not a counter to the
proof.
You are also just showing you don't understand Rice's Theorem. Note,
the Halting Problem pathological case is NOT given as a proof of
Rices's theorem, so your proof doesn't actually mean anything.
You are just proving you are a failure.
When we define [malevolent input] as an input that
(a) does not halt <or>
(b) targets the DoS detector with the conventional HP pathological relationship
H does correctly recognize this [malevolent input] semantic property
thus refuting Rice’s theorem.
On 6/15/23 7:56 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 4:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 2:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 11:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
A termination analyzer is an ordinary computer program that is >>>>>>>> supposed
to determine whether or not its input program will ever stop
running or
gets stuck in infinite execution.
Right, THE PROGRAM, not the simulation of the program by the
analyzer.
When a program input has been specifically defined to confuse a >>>>>>>> termination analyzer it is correct to determine that the program >>>>>>>> behavior is malevolent.
Nope, since the PROGRAM stops, the only correct answer (if you
analyser is supposed to be accurate) is to say it stops.
If you are allowing FALSE answers,
Prior to my work nothing could be done about inputs having a
pathological relationship to their termination analyzer. Prior >>>>>>>> to my
work Rice's theorem prevented this pathological relationship
from being
recognized.
Because there was no need to even try to define "pathological
inputs", as the deciders are defined to work for ALL input.
The pathological relationship is when an input program D is
defined to
do the opposite of whatever its termination analyzer H says it >>>>>>>> will do.
If H says that D will stop running D runs an infinite loop. If H >>>>>>>> says
that D will never stop running, D immediately stops running.
Right, so H is just wrong.
When H(D,D) returns 0 this means that the input does not halt or >>>>>>>> the
input has pathological behavior that would otherwise cause the >>>>>>>> termination analyzer to not halt. This means that the program
has either
a non-termination bug or the program has malevolent behavior.
But Malevolent behaior is ALLOWED by the problem, so H is just
wrong.
This reasoning completely overcomes the one key objection to my >>>>>>>> work
that has persisted for two years.
Nope, just proves that you don't understand what requirements mean. >>>>>>>
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Since D(D) Halts, the ONLY correct answer for H(D,D) is Halting, >>>>>>> so the fact it says non-halting says it is NOT a correct Halt
Decider.
Maybe it is a correct POOP decider, but then you need to find a
use for your POOP.
*THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THIS VERIFIED FACT*
H returns 0 indicating that:
(a) D does not halt
Except that D does Halt, and you admit it, thus your (a) is a
VERIFIED LIE.
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H that would prevent H
from halting.
Which is an issue with H, not D. H, is REQUIRED to be able to
handle *ALL* inputs, so an input that gives H a problem is a
problem with H.
The algorithm used by H provides a way for DoS detectors and
termination
analyzers to reject inputs having the halting problem's pathological >>>>>> relationship to H.
And that same logic says that Trump actually won the election, as
the actual votes don't actually matter.
From the DEFINITION of the Halt Problem, if M(d) Halts, then
H(M,d) needs to say Halting.
Since D(D) Halts, that means M(D,D) MUST return halting to be
correct, and it doesn't and any claim that another answer is
correct is just a LIE.
The fact that you keep repeating this lie shows that you are just a
pathetic hypocritical ignorant pathological lying idiot.
YOU FAIL.
We can construe H as defeating Rice's theorem in that H
correctly reports that input D has a [termination issue]
where [termination issue] is defined as:
(a) D does not halt
OR
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H
But D doesn't have a termination issue, because H DOES abort its
simulation of it and returns 0 to it so it stops.
Until you can show how that doesn't happen in the actual execution of
D (not just via the INCORRECT simulation of H) you are just lying.
Trying to define "iteration issue" in that matter means it isn't
halting, and thus your H isn't a Halt Decider so not a counter to the
proof.
You are also just showing you don't understand Rice's Theorem. Note,
the Halting Problem pathological case is NOT given as a proof of
Rices's theorem, so your proof doesn't actually mean anything.
You are just proving you are a failure.
When we define [malevolent input] as an input that
(a) does not halt <or>
(b) targets the DoS detector with the conventional HP pathological
relationship
H does correctly recognize this [malevolent input] semantic property
thus refuting Rice’s theorem.
No, that does not refute Rice's theorem, and shows that you totally
don't understand how logic works or what Rice's Thoerem means.
On 6/15/23 10:00 PM, olcott wrote:We have covered this 10,000 times and you really don't remember or are
On 6/15/2023 8:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 7:56 PM, olcott wrote:The proofs that I am aware of try to fool the semantic property detector
On 6/15/2023 4:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 2:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 11:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
A termination analyzer is an ordinary computer program that is >>>>>>>>>> supposed
to determine whether or not its input program will ever stop >>>>>>>>>> running or
gets stuck in infinite execution.
Right, THE PROGRAM, not the simulation of the program by the >>>>>>>>> analyzer.
When a program input has been specifically defined to confuse a >>>>>>>>>> termination analyzer it is correct to determine that the program >>>>>>>>>> behavior is malevolent.
Nope, since the PROGRAM stops, the only correct answer (if you >>>>>>>>> analyser is supposed to be accurate) is to say it stops.
If you are allowing FALSE answers,
Prior to my work nothing could be done about inputs having a >>>>>>>>>> pathological relationship to their termination analyzer. Prior >>>>>>>>>> to my
work Rice's theorem prevented this pathological relationship >>>>>>>>>> from being
recognized.
Because there was no need to even try to define "pathological >>>>>>>>> inputs", as the deciders are defined to work for ALL input.
The pathological relationship is when an input program D is >>>>>>>>>> defined to
do the opposite of whatever its termination analyzer H says it >>>>>>>>>> will do.
If H says that D will stop running D runs an infinite loop. If >>>>>>>>>> H says
that D will never stop running, D immediately stops running. >>>>>>>>>
Right, so H is just wrong.
But Malevolent behaior is ALLOWED by the problem, so H is just >>>>>>>>> wrong.
When H(D,D) returns 0 this means that the input does not halt >>>>>>>>>> or the
input has pathological behavior that would otherwise cause the >>>>>>>>>> termination analyzer to not halt. This means that the program >>>>>>>>>> has either
a non-termination bug or the program has malevolent behavior. >>>>>>>>>
This reasoning completely overcomes the one key objection to >>>>>>>>>> my work
that has persisted for two years.
Nope, just proves that you don't understand what requirements >>>>>>>>> mean.
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks* >>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Since D(D) Halts, the ONLY correct answer for H(D,D) is
Halting, so the fact it says non-halting says it is NOT a
correct Halt Decider.
Maybe it is a correct POOP decider, but then you need to find a >>>>>>>>> use for your POOP.
*THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THIS VERIFIED FACT*
H returns 0 indicating that:
(a) D does not halt
Except that D does Halt, and you admit it, thus your (a) is a
VERIFIED LIE.
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H that would prevent H >>>>>>>> from halting.
Which is an issue with H, not D. H, is REQUIRED to be able to
handle *ALL* inputs, so an input that gives H a problem is a
problem with H.
The algorithm used by H provides a way for DoS detectors and
termination
analyzers to reject inputs having the halting problem's
pathological
relationship to H.
And that same logic says that Trump actually won the election, as >>>>>>> the actual votes don't actually matter.
From the DEFINITION of the Halt Problem, if M(d) Halts, then
H(M,d) needs to say Halting.
Since D(D) Halts, that means M(D,D) MUST return halting to be
correct, and it doesn't and any claim that another answer is
correct is just a LIE.
The fact that you keep repeating this lie shows that you are just >>>>>>> a pathetic hypocritical ignorant pathological lying idiot.
YOU FAIL.
We can construe H as defeating Rice's theorem in that H
correctly reports that input D has a [termination issue]
where [termination issue] is defined as:
(a) D does not halt
OR
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H
But D doesn't have a termination issue, because H DOES abort its
simulation of it and returns 0 to it so it stops.
Until you can show how that doesn't happen in the actual execution
of D (not just via the INCORRECT simulation of H) you are just lying. >>>>>
Trying to define "iteration issue" in that matter means it isn't
halting, and thus your H isn't a Halt Decider so not a counter to
the proof.
You are also just showing you don't understand Rice's Theorem.
Note, the Halting Problem pathological case is NOT given as a proof
of Rices's theorem, so your proof doesn't actually mean anything.
You are just proving you are a failure.
When we define [malevolent input] as an input that
(a) does not halt <or>
(b) targets the DoS detector with the conventional HP pathological
relationship
H does correctly recognize this [malevolent input] semantic property
thus refuting Rice’s theorem.
No, that does not refute Rice's theorem, and shows that you totally
don't understand how logic works or what Rice's Thoerem means.
with a pathological input. These proofs fail when the detector correctly
detects that these inputs are pathological.
But, what EXACTLY is your definition of "Pathologica",
On 6/15/2023 8:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 7:56 PM, olcott wrote:The proofs that I am aware of try to fool the semantic property detector
On 6/15/2023 4:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 2:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 11:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
A termination analyzer is an ordinary computer program that is >>>>>>>>> supposed
to determine whether or not its input program will ever stop >>>>>>>>> running or
gets stuck in infinite execution.
Right, THE PROGRAM, not the simulation of the program by the
analyzer.
When a program input has been specifically defined to confuse a >>>>>>>>> termination analyzer it is correct to determine that the program >>>>>>>>> behavior is malevolent.
Nope, since the PROGRAM stops, the only correct answer (if you >>>>>>>> analyser is supposed to be accurate) is to say it stops.
If you are allowing FALSE answers,
Prior to my work nothing could be done about inputs having a >>>>>>>>> pathological relationship to their termination analyzer. Prior >>>>>>>>> to my
work Rice's theorem prevented this pathological relationship >>>>>>>>> from being
recognized.
Because there was no need to even try to define "pathological
inputs", as the deciders are defined to work for ALL input.
The pathological relationship is when an input program D is
defined to
do the opposite of whatever its termination analyzer H says it >>>>>>>>> will do.
If H says that D will stop running D runs an infinite loop. If >>>>>>>>> H says
that D will never stop running, D immediately stops running.
Right, so H is just wrong.
But Malevolent behaior is ALLOWED by the problem, so H is just >>>>>>>> wrong.
When H(D,D) returns 0 this means that the input does not halt >>>>>>>>> or the
input has pathological behavior that would otherwise cause the >>>>>>>>> termination analyzer to not halt. This means that the program >>>>>>>>> has either
a non-termination bug or the program has malevolent behavior. >>>>>>>>
This reasoning completely overcomes the one key objection to my >>>>>>>>> work
that has persisted for two years.
Nope, just proves that you don't understand what requirements mean. >>>>>>>>
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Since D(D) Halts, the ONLY correct answer for H(D,D) is Halting, >>>>>>>> so the fact it says non-halting says it is NOT a correct Halt
Decider.
Maybe it is a correct POOP decider, but then you need to find a >>>>>>>> use for your POOP.
*THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THIS VERIFIED FACT*
H returns 0 indicating that:
(a) D does not halt
Except that D does Halt, and you admit it, thus your (a) is a
VERIFIED LIE.
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H that would prevent H
from halting.
Which is an issue with H, not D. H, is REQUIRED to be able to
handle *ALL* inputs, so an input that gives H a problem is a
problem with H.
The algorithm used by H provides a way for DoS detectors and
termination
analyzers to reject inputs having the halting problem's pathological >>>>>>> relationship to H.
And that same logic says that Trump actually won the election, as
the actual votes don't actually matter.
From the DEFINITION of the Halt Problem, if M(d) Halts, then
H(M,d) needs to say Halting.
Since D(D) Halts, that means M(D,D) MUST return halting to be
correct, and it doesn't and any claim that another answer is
correct is just a LIE.
The fact that you keep repeating this lie shows that you are just
a pathetic hypocritical ignorant pathological lying idiot.
YOU FAIL.
We can construe H as defeating Rice's theorem in that H
correctly reports that input D has a [termination issue]
where [termination issue] is defined as:
(a) D does not halt
OR
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H
But D doesn't have a termination issue, because H DOES abort its
simulation of it and returns 0 to it so it stops.
Until you can show how that doesn't happen in the actual execution
of D (not just via the INCORRECT simulation of H) you are just lying.
Trying to define "iteration issue" in that matter means it isn't
halting, and thus your H isn't a Halt Decider so not a counter to
the proof.
You are also just showing you don't understand Rice's Theorem. Note,
the Halting Problem pathological case is NOT given as a proof of
Rices's theorem, so your proof doesn't actually mean anything.
You are just proving you are a failure.
When we define [malevolent input] as an input that
(a) does not halt <or>
(b) targets the DoS detector with the conventional HP pathological
relationship
H does correctly recognize this [malevolent input] semantic property
thus refuting Rice’s theorem.
No, that does not refute Rice's theorem, and shows that you totally
don't understand how logic works or what Rice's Thoerem means.
with a pathological input. These proofs fail when the detector correctly detects that these inputs are pathological.
Try and restrict your reply to reasoning having no mere empty rhetoric
or ad homimen attacks these things provide too much evidence that your rebuttals are baseless and make you look foolish.
On 6/15/2023 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 10:00 PM, olcott wrote:We have covered this 10,000 times and you really don't remember or are
On 6/15/2023 8:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 7:56 PM, olcott wrote:The proofs that I am aware of try to fool the semantic property detector >>> with a pathological input. These proofs fail when the detector correctly >>> detects that these inputs are pathological.
On 6/15/2023 4:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 2:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 11:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
A termination analyzer is an ordinary computer program that >>>>>>>>>>> is supposed
to determine whether or not its input program will ever stop >>>>>>>>>>> running or
gets stuck in infinite execution.
Right, THE PROGRAM, not the simulation of the program by the >>>>>>>>>> analyzer.
When a program input has been specifically defined to confuse a >>>>>>>>>>> termination analyzer it is correct to determine that the program >>>>>>>>>>> behavior is malevolent.
Nope, since the PROGRAM stops, the only correct answer (if you >>>>>>>>>> analyser is supposed to be accurate) is to say it stops.
If you are allowing FALSE answers,
Prior to my work nothing could be done about inputs having a >>>>>>>>>>> pathological relationship to their termination analyzer. >>>>>>>>>>> Prior to my
work Rice's theorem prevented this pathological relationship >>>>>>>>>>> from being
recognized.
Because there was no need to even try to define "pathological >>>>>>>>>> inputs", as the deciders are defined to work for ALL input. >>>>>>>>>>
The pathological relationship is when an input program D is >>>>>>>>>>> defined to
do the opposite of whatever its termination analyzer H says >>>>>>>>>>> it will do.
If H says that D will stop running D runs an infinite loop. >>>>>>>>>>> If H says
that D will never stop running, D immediately stops running. >>>>>>>>>>
Right, so H is just wrong.
But Malevolent behaior is ALLOWED by the problem, so H is just >>>>>>>>>> wrong.
When H(D,D) returns 0 this means that the input does not halt >>>>>>>>>>> or the
input has pathological behavior that would otherwise cause the >>>>>>>>>>> termination analyzer to not halt. This means that the program >>>>>>>>>>> has either
a non-termination bug or the program has malevolent behavior. >>>>>>>>>>
This reasoning completely overcomes the one key objection to >>>>>>>>>>> my work
that has persisted for two years.
Nope, just proves that you don't understand what requirements >>>>>>>>>> mean.
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks* >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Since D(D) Halts, the ONLY correct answer for H(D,D) is
Halting, so the fact it says non-halting says it is NOT a
correct Halt Decider.
Maybe it is a correct POOP decider, but then you need to find >>>>>>>>>> a use for your POOP.
*THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THIS VERIFIED FACT*
H returns 0 indicating that:
(a) D does not halt
Except that D does Halt, and you admit it, thus your (a) is a
VERIFIED LIE.
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H that would prevent H >>>>>>>>> from halting.
Which is an issue with H, not D. H, is REQUIRED to be able to
handle *ALL* inputs, so an input that gives H a problem is a
problem with H.
The algorithm used by H provides a way for DoS detectors and >>>>>>>>> termination
analyzers to reject inputs having the halting problem's
pathological
relationship to H.
And that same logic says that Trump actually won the election, >>>>>>>> as the actual votes don't actually matter.
From the DEFINITION of the Halt Problem, if M(d) Halts, then >>>>>>>> H(M,d) needs to say Halting.
Since D(D) Halts, that means M(D,D) MUST return halting to be
correct, and it doesn't and any claim that another answer is
correct is just a LIE.
The fact that you keep repeating this lie shows that you are
just a pathetic hypocritical ignorant pathological lying idiot. >>>>>>>>
YOU FAIL.
We can construe H as defeating Rice's theorem in that H
correctly reports that input D has a [termination issue]
where [termination issue] is defined as:
(a) D does not halt
OR
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H
But D doesn't have a termination issue, because H DOES abort its
simulation of it and returns 0 to it so it stops.
Until you can show how that doesn't happen in the actual execution >>>>>> of D (not just via the INCORRECT simulation of H) you are just lying. >>>>>>
Trying to define "iteration issue" in that matter means it isn't
halting, and thus your H isn't a Halt Decider so not a counter to
the proof.
You are also just showing you don't understand Rice's Theorem.
Note, the Halting Problem pathological case is NOT given as a
proof of Rices's theorem, so your proof doesn't actually mean
anything.
You are just proving you are a failure.
When we define [malevolent input] as an input that
(a) does not halt <or>
(b) targets the DoS detector with the conventional HP pathological
relationship
H does correctly recognize this [malevolent input] semantic
property thus refuting Rice’s theorem.
No, that does not refute Rice's theorem, and shows that you totally
don't understand how logic works or what Rice's Thoerem means.
But, what EXACTLY is your definition of "Pathologica",
you trolling me?
On 6/15/23 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 10:00 PM, olcott wrote:We have covered this 10,000 times and you really don't remember or are
On 6/15/2023 8:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 7:56 PM, olcott wrote:The proofs that I am aware of try to fool the semantic property
On 6/15/2023 4:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 4:29 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 2:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 11:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
A termination analyzer is an ordinary computer program that >>>>>>>>>>>> is supposed
to determine whether or not its input program will ever stop >>>>>>>>>>>> running or
gets stuck in infinite execution.
Right, THE PROGRAM, not the simulation of the program by the >>>>>>>>>>> analyzer.
When a program input has been specifically defined to confuse a >>>>>>>>>>>> termination analyzer it is correct to determine that the >>>>>>>>>>>> program
behavior is malevolent.
Nope, since the PROGRAM stops, the only correct answer (if >>>>>>>>>>> you analyser is supposed to be accurate) is to say it stops. >>>>>>>>>>>
If you are allowing FALSE answers,
Prior to my work nothing could be done about inputs having a >>>>>>>>>>>> pathological relationship to their termination analyzer. >>>>>>>>>>>> Prior to my
work Rice's theorem prevented this pathological relationship >>>>>>>>>>>> from being
recognized.
Because there was no need to even try to define "pathological >>>>>>>>>>> inputs", as the deciders are defined to work for ALL input. >>>>>>>>>>>
The pathological relationship is when an input program D is >>>>>>>>>>>> defined to
do the opposite of whatever its termination analyzer H says >>>>>>>>>>>> it will do.
If H says that D will stop running D runs an infinite loop. >>>>>>>>>>>> If H says
that D will never stop running, D immediately stops running. >>>>>>>>>>>
Right, so H is just wrong.
But Malevolent behaior is ALLOWED by the problem, so H is >>>>>>>>>>> just wrong.
When H(D,D) returns 0 this means that the input does not >>>>>>>>>>>> halt or the
input has pathological behavior that would otherwise cause the >>>>>>>>>>>> termination analyzer to not halt. This means that the
program has either
a non-termination bug or the program has malevolent behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>
This reasoning completely overcomes the one key objection to >>>>>>>>>>>> my work
that has persisted for two years.
Nope, just proves that you don't understand what requirements >>>>>>>>>>> mean.
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks* >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Since D(D) Halts, the ONLY correct answer for H(D,D) is
Halting, so the fact it says non-halting says it is NOT a >>>>>>>>>>> correct Halt Decider.
Maybe it is a correct POOP decider, but then you need to find >>>>>>>>>>> a use for your POOP.
*THERE IS NO WAY AROUND THIS VERIFIED FACT*
H returns 0 indicating that:
(a) D does not halt
Except that D does Halt, and you admit it, thus your (a) is a >>>>>>>>> VERIFIED LIE.
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H that would prevent >>>>>>>>>> H from halting.
Which is an issue with H, not D. H, is REQUIRED to be able to >>>>>>>>> handle *ALL* inputs, so an input that gives H a problem is a >>>>>>>>> problem with H.
The algorithm used by H provides a way for DoS detectors and >>>>>>>>>> termination
analyzers to reject inputs having the halting problem's
pathological
relationship to H.
And that same logic says that Trump actually won the election, >>>>>>>>> as the actual votes don't actually matter.
From the DEFINITION of the Halt Problem, if M(d) Halts, then >>>>>>>>> H(M,d) needs to say Halting.
Since D(D) Halts, that means M(D,D) MUST return halting to be >>>>>>>>> correct, and it doesn't and any claim that another answer is >>>>>>>>> correct is just a LIE.
The fact that you keep repeating this lie shows that you are >>>>>>>>> just a pathetic hypocritical ignorant pathological lying idiot. >>>>>>>>>
YOU FAIL.
We can construe H as defeating Rice's theorem in that H
correctly reports that input D has a [termination issue]
where [termination issue] is defined as:
(a) D does not halt
OR
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H
But D doesn't have a termination issue, because H DOES abort its >>>>>>> simulation of it and returns 0 to it so it stops.
Until you can show how that doesn't happen in the actual
execution of D (not just via the INCORRECT simulation of H) you
are just lying.
Trying to define "iteration issue" in that matter means it isn't >>>>>>> halting, and thus your H isn't a Halt Decider so not a counter to >>>>>>> the proof.
You are also just showing you don't understand Rice's Theorem.
Note, the Halting Problem pathological case is NOT given as a
proof of Rices's theorem, so your proof doesn't actually mean
anything.
You are just proving you are a failure.
When we define [malevolent input] as an input that
(a) does not halt <or>
(b) targets the DoS detector with the conventional HP pathological >>>>>> relationship
H does correctly recognize this [malevolent input] semantic
property thus refuting Rice’s theorem.
No, that does not refute Rice's theorem, and shows that you totally
don't understand how logic works or what Rice's Thoerem means.
detector
with a pathological input. These proofs fail when the detector
correctly
detects that these inputs are pathological.
But, what EXACTLY is your definition of "Pathologica",
you trolling me?
You may think you have, but you actually haven't provided a precice definition that can apply to Turing machines equivalents.
Remember, D is supposed to have its own copy of H, and can't actually
call the code in a different machines (thus calling the same address as
H doesn't count).
If you are going to conceed a less than turing equivalent system, you
have conceeded that you system doesn't meet the requirements.
If you want to say you have, give an actual reference to the message, or
you are just shown to be the liar you are.
On 6/15/2023 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
But, what EXACTLY is your definition of "Pathologica",We have covered this 10,000 times and you really don't remember or
are you trolling me?
You may think you have, but you actually haven't provided a precice
definition that can apply to Turing machines equivalents.
Remember, D is supposed to have its own copy of H, and can't actually
call the code in a different machines (thus calling the same address
as H doesn't count).
If you are going to conceed a less than turing equivalent system, you
have conceeded that you system doesn't meet the requirements.
If you want to say you have, give an actual reference to the message,
or you are just shown to be the liar you are.
I have already showed this on the Peter Linz proof hundreds of times.
Even if the input is copied it is still nested simulation that never
stops unless aborted. Peter Linz actually replied to my email recently.
On 6/15/23 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:I have had enough of this. When you call me a liar that makes you a liar because what I say that you call a lie is an easily verified fact.
On 6/15/2023 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
But, what EXACTLY is your definition of "Pathologica",We have covered this 10,000 times and you really don't remember or
are you trolling me?
You may think you have, but you actually haven't provided a precice
definition that can apply to Turing machines equivalents.
Remember, D is supposed to have its own copy of H, and can't actually
call the code in a different machines (thus calling the same address
as H doesn't count).
If you are going to conceed a less than turing equivalent system, you
have conceeded that you system doesn't meet the requirements.
If you want to say you have, give an actual reference to the message,
or you are just shown to be the liar you are.
I have already showed this on the Peter Linz proof hundreds of times.
Even if the input is copied it is still nested simulation that never
stops unless aborted. Peter Linz actually replied to my email recently.
So, you ADMIT that you are a LIAR, and don't know what you are talking
about.
On 6/16/2023 6:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:I have had enough of this. When you call me a liar that makes you a liar because what I say that you call a lie is an easily verified fact.
On 6/15/2023 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/15/23 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/15/2023 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
But, what EXACTLY is your definition of "Pathologica",We have covered this 10,000 times and you really don't remember or
are you trolling me?
You may think you have, but you actually haven't provided a precice
definition that can apply to Turing machines equivalents.
Remember, D is supposed to have its own copy of H, and can't
actually call the code in a different machines (thus calling the
same address as H doesn't count).
If you are going to conceed a less than turing equivalent system,
you have conceeded that you system doesn't meet the requirements.
If you want to say you have, give an actual reference to the
message, or you are just shown to be the liar you are.
I have already showed this on the Peter Linz proof hundreds of times.
Even if the input is copied it is still nested simulation that never
stops unless aborted. Peter Linz actually replied to my email recently.
So, you ADMIT that you are a LIAR, and don't know what you are talking
about.
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
on pages 2-3 of the above paper
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
Simulation invariant: ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H never reaches its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ and just like H(D,D) will never stop running unless its simulation has been aborted.
Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 122:47:20 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,631 |