On 6/18/23 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:That is why I triple dog dare you to define it or acknowledge that no
On 6/18/2023 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:// The following is written in C
On 6/18/2023 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 7:41 PM, olcott wrote:If I ask you what correct (yes or no) answer of could Jack reply with? >>>> Exactly why can’t you answer this?
On 6/18/2023 1:56 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 8:09:51 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote
<nonsense>
A possible "practical solution" for an actual "halt decider"
might be something I will call a semi-halt-decider here.
The latter allows for 3 answers (return values) when called:
H(P, d) -> 1 "P(d) halts"
H(P, d) -> -1 "P(d) doesn't halt."
H(P, d) -> 0 "Don't know/can't tell if P(d) halts or not"
Such a semi-halt-decider might be able to determine _the correct_ >>>>>>> answer (1, -1) for a big class of casses. On the other hand, it
would always have the possibility to "give up" (for certain
cases) and anwer with 0: "Don't know/can't tell" (and this way be >>>>>>> able to avoid INCORRECT ANSWERS concerning the actual behavior of >>>>>>> P(d)).
The key difference with my work that is a true innovation in this
field
is that H doesn't simply give up. H specifically recognizes self-
contradictory inputs and rejects them.
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Except the input isn't self-contradictory, since the input can't
exist until H is defined, and once H is defined, the input has
definite behavior, so there is no self-contradiction possilble,
only error.
He has no answer that is correct, but that doesn't matter and is just
you faliing into the fallacy of the Red Herring.
//
01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
03
04 int D(ptr x)
05 {
06 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
07 if (Halt_Status)
08 HERE: goto HERE;
09 return Halt_Status;
10 }
11
12 void main()
13 {
14 H(D,D);
15 }
Since the above H is an unspecified wildcard you are free to encode it
in any one of an infinite number of different ways and return any
Boolean value that you want.
Nope, D isn't a PROGRAM until H is DEFINED.
On 6/18/2023 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:That is why I triple dog dare you to define it or acknowledge that no
On 6/18/2023 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:// The following is written in C
On 6/18/2023 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 7:41 PM, olcott wrote:If I ask you what correct (yes or no) answer of could Jack reply with? >>>>> Exactly why can’t you answer this?
On 6/18/2023 1:56 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 8:09:51 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote
<nonsense>
A possible "practical solution" for an actual "halt decider"
might be something I will call a semi-halt-decider here.
The latter allows for 3 answers (return values) when called:
H(P, d) -> 1 "P(d) halts"
H(P, d) -> -1 "P(d) doesn't halt."
H(P, d) -> 0 "Don't know/can't tell if P(d) halts or not"
Such a semi-halt-decider might be able to determine _the
correct_ answer (1, -1) for a big class of casses. On the other >>>>>>>> hand, it would always have the possibility to "give up" (for
certain cases) and anwer with 0: "Don't know/can't tell" (and
this way be able to avoid INCORRECT ANSWERS concerning the
actual behavior of P(d)).
The key difference with my work that is a true innovation in this >>>>>>> field
is that H doesn't simply give up. H specifically recognizes self- >>>>>>> contradictory inputs and rejects them.
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Except the input isn't self-contradictory, since the input can't
exist until H is defined, and once H is defined, the input has
definite behavior, so there is no self-contradiction possilble,
only error.
He has no answer that is correct, but that doesn't matter and is
just you faliing into the fallacy of the Red Herring.
//
01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
03
04 int D(ptr x)
05 {
06 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
07 if (Halt_Status)
08 HERE: goto HERE;
09 return Halt_Status;
10 }
11
12 void main()
13 {
14 H(D,D);
15 }
Since the above H is an unspecified wildcard you are free to encode it
in any one of an infinite number of different ways and return any
Boolean value that you want.
Nope, D isn't a PROGRAM until H is DEFINED.
such program can possibly be defined because the input D to any
corresponding H is isomorphic to Jack's question posed to Jack.
Once we acknowledge that the halting problem input to H is an incorrect
to H then we can understand that this incorrect question is aptly re-
framed into the correct question:
Does input D halt on its input [GOOD INPUT] or is D [BAD INPUT] that
either fails to halt or defines a pathological relationship to H.
This does overcome Rice's theorem for at least the reduction of Rice's theorem to the halting problem.
Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]?
On 6/18/23 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/18/2023 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:That is why I triple dog dare you to define it or acknowledge that no
On 6/18/2023 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:// The following is written in C
On 6/18/2023 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 7:41 PM, olcott wrote:If I ask you what correct (yes or no) answer of could Jack reply
On 6/18/2023 1:56 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 8:09:51 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote >>>>>>>>> <nonsense>
A possible "practical solution" for an actual "halt decider" >>>>>>>>> might be something I will call a semi-halt-decider here.
The latter allows for 3 answers (return values) when called: >>>>>>>>>
H(P, d) -> 1 "P(d) halts"
H(P, d) -> -1 "P(d) doesn't halt."
H(P, d) -> 0 "Don't know/can't tell if P(d) halts or not"
Such a semi-halt-decider might be able to determine _the
correct_ answer (1, -1) for a big class of casses. On the other >>>>>>>>> hand, it would always have the possibility to "give up" (for >>>>>>>>> certain cases) and anwer with 0: "Don't know/can't tell" (and >>>>>>>>> this way be able to avoid INCORRECT ANSWERS concerning the
actual behavior of P(d)).
The key difference with my work that is a true innovation in
this field
is that H doesn't simply give up. H specifically recognizes self- >>>>>>>> contradictory inputs and rejects them.
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Except the input isn't self-contradictory, since the input can't >>>>>>> exist until H is defined, and once H is defined, the input has
definite behavior, so there is no self-contradiction possilble,
only error.
with?
Exactly why can’t you answer this?
He has no answer that is correct, but that doesn't matter and is
just you faliing into the fallacy of the Red Herring.
//
01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
03
04 int D(ptr x)
05 {
06 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
07 if (Halt_Status)
08 HERE: goto HERE;
09 return Halt_Status;
10 }
11
12 void main()
13 {
14 H(D,D);
15 }
Since the above H is an unspecified wildcard you are free to encode it >>>> in any one of an infinite number of different ways and return any
Boolean value that you want.
Nope, D isn't a PROGRAM until H is DEFINED.
such program can possibly be defined because the input D to any
corresponding H is isomorphic to Jack's question posed to Jack.
SO, you AGREE that a "Correct Halt Decider", as defined by the Halting Problem, can't exist.
It is easy to make D a program, just define some H, any H, then D is a
valid program, and will either Halt or not. D's validity as a program is
NOT dependent on H getting the right answer. Thus an H that just
immediately returns 0 makes D a valid program.
Once we acknowledge that the halting problem input to H is an incorrect
to H then we can understand that this incorrect question is aptly re-
framed into the correct question:
Why is it "Incorrect"? The fact that H can't give the right answer is a problem with H, not with the input.
The definition of a "Valid Input" for H, is that it represents a Program
and its input. This call sequence does that, so the input is valid.
Does input D halt on its input [GOOD INPUT] or is D [BAD INPUT] that
either fails to halt or defines a pathological relationship to H.
And D DOES halt on its input, since it will "call" H(D,D), which your H
has been defined so that it will return 0 from that call.
There is nothing "BAD" about a D that doesn't halt,
that just means it
is an input that H needs to "reject" (return the "Non-Halting" value
for). There is also nothing "Bad" about the "pathological" relationship between D and H, as that is just part of "Any Program".
Remember, if you change H to be the Hn, non-aborting version of it, and
the make the Dn from that Hn, we find that Dn(Dn) will not halt, so Hn
should have returned 0, but it just never returns an answer, showing
that *H* is a defective machine, not meeting its requirements.
This does overcome Rice's theorem for at least the reduction of Rice's
theorem to the halting problem.
Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]?
No, because Rice's theorem is does the input have Semantic Property S,
and a "pathological relationship" isn't considered a "BAD INPUT".
ALL PROGRAMS means ALL PROGRAMS, not all the ones I can handle.
IF you wnat to try to define a Semntic Property S that somehow includes
this pathology in its criteria, you need to FORMALLY define what you
mean by it. You also need to show that the property is still wholly
Semantic, and that you haven't given yourself a Syntactic property.
You also then need to show that you can get the correct answer for ALL inputs, the Achilies Heel for a Halt Decider might not be the Achilies
Heel for your new decider, so just because you handle it, doesn't mean
you have PROVEN that you can answwer that property.
On 6/19/2023 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/18/2023 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:That is why I triple dog dare you to define it or acknowledge that no
On 6/18/2023 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:// The following is written in C
On 6/18/2023 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 7:41 PM, olcott wrote:If I ask you what correct (yes or no) answer of could Jack reply >>>>>>> with?
On 6/18/2023 1:56 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 8:09:51 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote >>>>>>>>>> <nonsense>
A possible "practical solution" for an actual "halt decider" >>>>>>>>>> might be something I will call a semi-halt-decider here.
The latter allows for 3 answers (return values) when called: >>>>>>>>>>
H(P, d) -> 1 "P(d) halts"
H(P, d) -> -1 "P(d) doesn't halt."
H(P, d) -> 0 "Don't know/can't tell if P(d) halts or not"
Such a semi-halt-decider might be able to determine _the
correct_ answer (1, -1) for a big class of casses. On the
other hand, it would always have the possibility to "give up" >>>>>>>>>> (for certain cases) and anwer with 0: "Don't know/can't tell" >>>>>>>>>> (and this way be able to avoid INCORRECT ANSWERS concerning >>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of P(d)).
The key difference with my work that is a true innovation in >>>>>>>>> this field
is that H doesn't simply give up. H specifically recognizes self- >>>>>>>>> contradictory inputs and rejects them.
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Except the input isn't self-contradictory, since the input can't >>>>>>>> exist until H is defined, and once H is defined, the input has >>>>>>>> definite behavior, so there is no self-contradiction possilble, >>>>>>>> only error.
Exactly why can’t you answer this?
He has no answer that is correct, but that doesn't matter and is
just you faliing into the fallacy of the Red Herring.
//
01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input >>>>> 03
04 int D(ptr x)
05 {
06 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
07 if (Halt_Status)
08 HERE: goto HERE;
09 return Halt_Status;
10 }
11
12 void main()
13 {
14 H(D,D);
15 }
Since the above H is an unspecified wildcard you are free to encode it >>>>> in any one of an infinite number of different ways and return any
Boolean value that you want.
Nope, D isn't a PROGRAM until H is DEFINED.
such program can possibly be defined because the input D to any
corresponding H is isomorphic to Jack's question posed to Jack.
SO, you AGREE that a "Correct Halt Decider", as defined by the Halting
Problem, can't exist.
I don't agree that your understanding of the halting problem is correct.
H is required to report on the actual behavior that it actually sees.
You and others are requiring H to report on behavior that it does not
see. You already also admitted that when H reports on this behavior that
it does not see that this changes this behavior that it does not see
making its report incorrect.
Within the false hypothesis that H is incorrect to report that its input
does not halt, the only alternative is to change the meaning of what H reports. When H becomes a [BAD INPUT] decider no one can correctly say
that H is wrong. This also refutes Rice which is more important that
solving the halting problem because it has a much broader scope.
Termination Analyzer H determines the semantic property of
[GOOD INPUT] meaning that input D halts <and>
[BAD INPUT] meaning
(a) input D doesn't halt <or>
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H. This means that D calls H
and does the opposite of the Boolean value that H returns.
It is easy to make D a program, just define some H, any H, then D is a
valid program, and will either Halt or not. D's validity as a program
is NOT dependent on H getting the right answer. Thus an H that just
immediately returns 0 makes D a valid program.
H correctly determines that D has the semantic property of [BAD INPUT]
making Denial of Service (DoS) attack detector H correct to reject D.
Once we acknowledge that the halting problem input to H is an incorrect
to H then we can understand that this incorrect question is aptly re-
framed into the correct question:
Why is it "Incorrect"? The fact that H can't give the right answer is
a problem with H, not with the input.
Then the problem with Jack's question is Jack not the fact that Jack's question is self-contradictory for Jack. Jack is simply too stupid to
give a correct yes or no answer to a self-contradictory question. We all
know that Jack's question has a correct answer, yet Jack is simply too
stupid to decide between yes and no.
The definition of a "Valid Input" for H, is that it represents a
Program and its input. This call sequence does that, so the input is
valid.
A syntactically valid input is not the same as a semantically valid
input. Any input that makes both Boolean return values the wrong answer
is a semantically invalid input.
Does input D halt on its input [GOOD INPUT] or is D [BAD INPUT] that
either fails to halt or defines a pathological relationship to H.
And D DOES halt on its input, since it will "call" H(D,D), which your
H has been defined so that it will return 0 from that call.
Which is a correct return value for the semantic property of [BAD INPUT].
There is nothing "BAD" about a D that doesn't halt,
Sure everyone knows that Denial of Service attacks are great. My
hospital loved it when they had no access to patient records for several days.
that just means it is an input that H needs to "reject" (return the
"Non-Halting" value for). There is also nothing "Bad" about the
"pathological" relationship between D and H, as that is just part of
"Any Program".
Yes that is true everyone loves successful Denial of Service attacks.
If there was a DoS detector that could correctly reject every
[malevolent input] people would really hate that. They love successful
DoS attacks.
Remember, if you change H to be the Hn, non-aborting version of it,
and the make the Dn from that Hn, we find that Dn(Dn) will not halt,
so Hn should have returned 0, but it just never returns an answer,
showing that *H* is a defective machine, not meeting its requirements.
When H reports on the semantic property of [BAD INPUT] the labels could
be switched to account for all of the people that love successful Denial
of Service attacks. Only inputs that allow DoS attacks are construed as
[GOOD INPUTS]. Inputs that simply halt are now called [BAD INPUTS].
H still correctly decides a semantic property of D, thus H still refutes Rice.
This does overcome Rice's theorem for at least the reduction of Rice's
theorem to the halting problem.
Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]?
No, because Rice's theorem is does the input have Semantic Property S,
and a "pathological relationship" isn't considered a "BAD INPUT".
That is the only reason that Rice has not been overcome. No one ever
thought of a way to exclude [BAD INPUTS] thus making semantic properties undecidable. Once we do exclude [BAD INPUTS] then semantic properties
are decidable.
ALL PROGRAMS means ALL PROGRAMS, not all the ones I can handle.
H correctly determines the semantic property of [BAD INPUT] prior to my
work no H could ever correctly determine any semantic property. That H
does correctly determine at least a single semantic property when Rice
claims that no H can every determine any semantic property refutes Rice.
IF you wnat to try to define a Semntic Property S that somehow
includes this pathology in its criteria, you need to FORMALLY define
what you mean by it. You also need to show that the property is still
wholly Semantic, and that you haven't given yourself a Syntactic
property.
When-so-ever any input to any decider calls this decider with an input
that does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this decider
returns this input <is> a pathological input. My H has been able to do
that for more than two years.
My system also works with embedded copies of deciders yet this makes the
code much more difficult to understand so I didn't implement it.
You also then need to show that you can get the correct answer for ALL
inputs, the Achilies Heel for a Halt Decider might not be the Achilies
Heel for your new decider, so just because you handle it, doesn't mean
you have PROVEN that you can answwer that property.
H does correctly refute Rice's theorem for the halting problem's
pathological input. This is much more success than anyone else has ever achieved. Once this success is acknowledged a well funded large team of experts can work on extending my ideas.
On 6/19/23 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2023 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/18/2023 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:That is why I triple dog dare you to define it or acknowledge that no
On 6/18/2023 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:// The following is written in C
On 6/18/2023 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 7:41 PM, olcott wrote:If I ask you what correct (yes or no) answer of could Jack reply >>>>>>>> with?
On 6/18/2023 1:56 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 8:09:51 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote >>>>>>>>>>> <nonsense>
A possible "practical solution" for an actual "halt decider" >>>>>>>>>>> might be something I will call a semi-halt-decider here. >>>>>>>>>>>
The latter allows for 3 answers (return values) when called: >>>>>>>>>>>
H(P, d) -> 1 "P(d) halts"
H(P, d) -> -1 "P(d) doesn't halt."
H(P, d) -> 0 "Don't know/can't tell if P(d) halts or not" >>>>>>>>>>>
Such a semi-halt-decider might be able to determine _the >>>>>>>>>>> correct_ answer (1, -1) for a big class of casses. On the >>>>>>>>>>> other hand, it would always have the possibility to "give up" >>>>>>>>>>> (for certain cases) and anwer with 0: "Don't know/can't tell" >>>>>>>>>>> (and this way be able to avoid INCORRECT ANSWERS concerning >>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of P(d)).
The key difference with my work that is a true innovation in >>>>>>>>>> this field
is that H doesn't simply give up. H specifically recognizes self- >>>>>>>>>> contradictory inputs and rejects them.
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks* >>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Except the input isn't self-contradictory, since the input
can't exist until H is defined, and once H is defined, the
input has definite behavior, so there is no self-contradiction >>>>>>>>> possilble, only error.
Exactly why can’t you answer this?
He has no answer that is correct, but that doesn't matter and is >>>>>>> just you faliing into the fallacy of the Red Herring.
//
01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input >>>>>> 03
04 int D(ptr x)
05 {
06 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
07 if (Halt_Status)
08 HERE: goto HERE;
09 return Halt_Status;
10 }
11
12 void main()
13 {
14 H(D,D);
15 }
Since the above H is an unspecified wildcard you are free to
encode it
in any one of an infinite number of different ways and return any
Boolean value that you want.
Nope, D isn't a PROGRAM until H is DEFINED.
such program can possibly be defined because the input D to any
corresponding H is isomorphic to Jack's question posed to Jack.
SO, you AGREE that a "Correct Halt Decider", as defined by the
Halting Problem, can't exist.
I don't agree that your understanding of the halting problem is correct.
H is required to report on the actual behavior that it actually sees.
Where does THAT come from. It may only be ABLE to do so, but the
REQUIREMENT is the behavior of the actual machine.
You seem to have trouble with the English Languge.
Please show me any reputable reference that says you get to disregard
the ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS because you can't see what you need to do so
You and others are requiring H to report on behavior that it does not
see. You already also admitted that when H reports on this behavior that
it does not see that this changes this behavior that it does not see
making its report incorrect.
Yes, because that is what the requirements say. The requirements are
what the requirements say, because that is the requirements needed to
solve the mathematical problems that a Halt Decider is hoped to be able
to help with.
Within the false hypothesis that H is incorrect to report that its input
does not halt, the only alternative is to change the meaning of what H
reports. When H becomes a [BAD INPUT] decider no one can correctly say
that H is wrong. This also refutes Rice which is more important that
solving the halting problem because it has a much broader scope.
That isn't a "false hypothesis", it is a stated requirement.
Since D(D) Halts, by the definition of the problem, H, to be correct,
must report Halting.
Remember:
In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever.
Thus the thing to look at is the PROGRAM itself and its behavior.
DEFINITION.
Termination Analyzer H determines the semantic property of
[GOOD INPUT] meaning that input D halts <and>
Since the machine represented by the input does Halt, that condition is statisfied.
Note you bad terminology, "Inputs" are just data, and don't actually DO anything. They can have "syntactic properties", but not "Behavior". They
can represent something that does have behavior, and from the definiton above, that is the machine they represent, NOT H's (partial) simulation
of them.
[BAD INPUT] meaning
(a) input D doesn't halt <or>
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H. This means that D calls H
and does the opposite of the Boolean value that H returns.
Which your H never atually confirms. You H will also call an HH that
does what H says to be pathological too, so you fail at this side.
It is easy to make D a program, just define some H, any H, then D is
a valid program, and will either Halt or not. D's validity as a
program is NOT dependent on H getting the right answer. Thus an H
that just immediately returns 0 makes D a valid program.
H correctly determines that D has the semantic property of [BAD INPUT]
making Denial of Service (DoS) attack detector H correct to reject D.
Which isn't a criterial for a Halt Decider, and as I just explained
above, you don't actually detect the pathological relationship, just
that D calls H.
Once we acknowledge that the halting problem input to H is an incorrect >>>> to H then we can understand that this incorrect question is aptly re-
framed into the correct question:
Why is it "Incorrect"? The fact that H can't give the right answer is
a problem with H, not with the input.
Then the problem with Jack's question is Jack not the fact that Jack's
question is self-contradictory for Jack. Jack is simply too stupid to
give a correct yes or no answer to a self-contradictory question. We all
know that Jack's question has a correct answer, yet Jack is simply too
stupid to decide between yes and no.
The problem with "Jack's Question" is it asks about something that
doesn't have a correct answer NOW.
The definition of a "Valid Input" for H, is that it represents a
Program and its input. This call sequence does that, so the input is
valid.
A syntactically valid input is not the same as a semantically valid
input. Any input that makes both Boolean return values the wrong answer
is a semantically invalid input.
Nope, it is a PROGRAM, thus it is VALID. If you try to define it as not valid, you are just admitting that H isn't a "Halt Decider" by the
definition of Computation Theory.
You clearly don't understand what you are talking about.
Does input D halt on its input [GOOD INPUT] or is D [BAD INPUT] that
either fails to halt or defines a pathological relationship to H.
And D DOES halt on its input, since it will "call" H(D,D), which your
H has been defined so that it will return 0 from that call.
Which is a correct return value for the semantic property of [BAD INPUT].
But makes D(D) Halt, so it is the wrong answer for a Halt Decider.
You are just admitting that you have been lying about working on the
Halting Problem of Computation Theory, the one descibed by the Linz
paper you quote.
Fine, everything you have said thus becomes a LIE.
There is nothing "BAD" about a D that doesn't halt,
Sure everyone knows that Denial of Service attacks are great. My
hospital loved it when they had no access to patient records for several
days.
Except the only DOS was to the Decider. If they just ran the program, it would have ended just fine.
You just don't understand the problem you are talking about and thus you
keep lying about it. You can't use the "honest mistake" excues, as the
errors have been pointed out, but you refuse to correct yourself.
that just means it is an input that H needs to "reject" (return the
"Non-Halting" value for). There is also nothing "Bad" about the
"pathological" relationship between D and H, as that is just part of
"Any Program".
Yes that is true everyone loves successful Denial of Service attacks.
If there was a DoS detector that could correctly reject every
[malevolent input] people would really hate that. They love successful
DoS attacks.
But this isn't the DOS detector problem, that allows false positives.
This is the accurate Halt Decider problem, which H fails at.
You are just admitting that you have been LYING for years about what you
are working on.
Remember, if you change H to be the Hn, non-aborting version of it,
and the make the Dn from that Hn, we find that Dn(Dn) will not halt,
so Hn should have returned 0, but it just never returns an answer,
showing that *H* is a defective machine, not meeting its requirements.
When H reports on the semantic property of [BAD INPUT] the labels could
be switched to account for all of the people that love successful Denial
of Service attacks. Only inputs that allow DoS attacks are construed as
[GOOD INPUTS]. Inputs that simply halt are now called [BAD INPUTS].
H still correctly decides a semantic property of D, thus H still refutes
Rice.
Nope. You can't refute Rice by saying that a machine gets one input right.
FALLACY of proof by example
You are just proving your logic system is full of fallacies.
This does overcome Rice's theorem for at least the reduction of Rice's >>>> theorem to the halting problem.
Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]?
No, because Rice's theorem is does the input have Semantic Property
S, and a "pathological relationship" isn't considered a "BAD INPUT".
That is the only reason that Rice has not been overcome. No one ever
thought of a way to exclude [BAD INPUTS] thus making semantic properties
undecidable. Once we do exclude [BAD INPUTS] then semantic properties
are decidable.
But you H doesn't successful decide on your property, as the DD that
does what H says is called "Bad input" when it doesn't meet the criteria
you have defined.
ALL PROGRAMS means ALL PROGRAMS, not all the ones I can handle.
H correctly determines the semantic property of [BAD INPUT] prior to my
work no H could ever correctly determine any semantic property. That H
does correctly determine at least a single semantic property when Rice
claims that no H can every determine any semantic property refutes Rice.
Nope, H gets DD wrong.
IF you wnat to try to define a Semntic Property S that somehow
includes this pathology in its criteria, you need to FORMALLY define
what you mean by it. You also need to show that the property is still
wholly Semantic, and that you haven't given yourself a Syntactic
property.
When-so-ever any input to any decider calls this decider with an input
that does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this decider
returns this input <is> a pathological input. My H has been able to do
that for more than two years.
But it fails on DD, so it still fail.
My system also works with embedded copies of deciders yet this makes the
code much more difficult to understand so I didn't implement it.
I don't think it does. I think you don't understand the nature of that problem.
You also then need to show that you can get the correct answer for
ALL inputs, the Achilies Heel for a Halt Decider might not be the
Achilies Heel for your new decider, so just because you handle it,
doesn't mean you have PROVEN that you can answwer that property.
H does correctly refute Rice's theorem for the halting problem's
pathological input. This is much more success than anyone else has ever
achieved. Once this success is acknowledged a well funded large team of
experts can work on extending my ideas.
Nope. Remember, by YOUR definiton of Pathological, your H fails for
DD(DD) as described above.
On 6/19/2023 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/19/23 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2023 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/18/2023 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:That is why I triple dog dare you to define it or acknowledge that no >>>> such program can possibly be defined because the input D to any
On 6/18/2023 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:// The following is written in C
On 6/18/2023 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 7:41 PM, olcott wrote:If I ask you what correct (yes or no) answer of could Jack reply >>>>>>>> with?
On 6/18/2023 1:56 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 8:09:51 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote >>>>>>>>>>> <nonsense>
A possible "practical solution" for an actual "halt decider" >>>>>>>>>>> might be something I will call a semi-halt-decider here. >>>>>>>>>>>
The latter allows for 3 answers (return values) when called: >>>>>>>>>>>
H(P, d) -> 1 "P(d) halts"
H(P, d) -> -1 "P(d) doesn't halt."
H(P, d) -> 0 "Don't know/can't tell if P(d) halts or not" >>>>>>>>>>>
Such a semi-halt-decider might be able to determine _the >>>>>>>>>>> correct_ answer (1, -1) for a big class of casses. On the >>>>>>>>>>> other hand, it would always have the possibility to "give up" >>>>>>>>>>> (for certain cases) and anwer with 0: "Don't know/can't tell" >>>>>>>>>>> (and this way be able to avoid INCORRECT ANSWERS concerning >>>>>>>>>>> the actual behavior of P(d)).
The key difference with my work that is a true innovation in >>>>>>>>>> this field
is that H doesn't simply give up. H specifically recognizes self- >>>>>>>>>> contradictory inputs and rejects them.
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks* >>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Except the input isn't self-contradictory, since the input >>>>>>>>> can't exist until H is defined, and once H is defined, the >>>>>>>>> input has definite behavior, so there is no self-contradiction >>>>>>>>> possilble, only error.
Exactly why can’t you answer this?
He has no answer that is correct, but that doesn't matter and is >>>>>>> just you faliing into the fallacy of the Red Herring.
//
01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input >>>>>> 03
04 int D(ptr x)
05 {
06 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
07 if (Halt_Status)
08 HERE: goto HERE;
09 return Halt_Status;
10 }
11
12 void main()
13 {
14 H(D,D);
15 }
Since the above H is an unspecified wildcard you are free to
encode it
in any one of an infinite number of different ways and return any >>>>>> Boolean value that you want.
Nope, D isn't a PROGRAM until H is DEFINED.
corresponding H is isomorphic to Jack's question posed to Jack.
SO, you AGREE that a "Correct Halt Decider", as defined by the
Halting Problem, can't exist.
I don't agree that your understanding of the halting problem is correct. >> H is required to report on the actual behavior that it actually sees.
Where does THAT come from. It may only be ABLE to do so, but the REQUIREMENT is the behavior of the actual machine.
You seem to have trouble with the English Languge.
Please show me any reputable reference that says you get to disregard
the ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS because you can't see what you need to do so
You and others are requiring H to report on behavior that it does not
see. You already also admitted that when H reports on this behavior that >> it does not see that this changes this behavior that it does not see
making its report incorrect.
Yes, because that is what the requirements say. The requirements are
what the requirements say, because that is the requirements needed to solve the mathematical problems that a Halt Decider is hoped to be able
to help with.
When the requirements are self-contradictory then they are incorrect.
Within the false hypothesis that H is incorrect to report that its input >> does not halt, the only alternative is to change the meaning of what H
reports. When H becomes a [BAD INPUT] decider no one can correctly say
that H is wrong. This also refutes Rice which is more important that
solving the halting problem because it has a much broader scope.
That isn't a "false hypothesis", it is a stated requirement.
Since D(D) Halts, by the definition of the problem, H, to be correct,
must report Halting.
Remember:
In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever.
Thus the thing to look at is the PROGRAM itself and its behavior. DEFINITION.
When the requirements are self-contradictory then they are incorrect.
When the bible says that God <is> and God <has> wrath the bible lies.
Termination Analyzer H determines the semantic property of
[GOOD INPUT] meaning that input D halts <and>
Since the machine represented by the input does Halt, that condition is statisfied.
Note you bad terminology, "Inputs" are just data, and don't actually DO anything. They can have "syntactic properties", but not "Behavior". They can represent something that does have behavior, and from the definiton above, that is the machine they represent, NOT H's (partial) simulation
of them.
Simply ignoring that a question is self-contradictory doesn't make it
not self-contradictory.
[BAD INPUT] meaning
(a) input D doesn't halt <or>
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H. This means that D calls H
and does the opposite of the Boolean value that H returns.
Which your H never atually confirms. You H will also call an HH that
does what H says to be pathological too, so you fail at this side.
It is easy to make D a program, just define some H, any H, then D is
a valid program, and will either Halt or not. D's validity as a
program is NOT dependent on H getting the right answer. Thus an H
that just immediately returns 0 makes D a valid program.
H correctly determines that D has the semantic property of [BAD INPUT]
making Denial of Service (DoS) attack detector H correct to reject D.
Which isn't a criterial for a Halt Decider, and as I just explained
above, you don't actually detect the pathological relationship, just
that D calls H.
Instead it refutes Rice's theorem.
Once we acknowledge that the halting problem input to H is an incorrect >>>> to H then we can understand that this incorrect question is aptly re- >>>> framed into the correct question:
Why is it "Incorrect"? The fact that H can't give the right answer is >>> a problem with H, not with the input.
Then the problem with Jack's question is Jack not the fact that Jack's
question is self-contradictory for Jack. Jack is simply too stupid to
give a correct yes or no answer to a self-contradictory question. We all >> know that Jack's question has a correct answer, yet Jack is simply too
stupid to decide between yes and no.
The problem with "Jack's Question" is it asks about something that
doesn't have a correct answer NOW.
Sure it does you ask three people
(a) Bill says Jack will say yes
(b) John says that Jack will say no
(c) Harry say Jack will say nothing or something besides yes or no
One of them is right.
Because our imaginary Jack is fictional Harry was right.
The definition of a "Valid Input" for H, is that it represents a
Program and its input. This call sequence does that, so the input is
valid.
A syntactically valid input is not the same as a semantically valid
input. Any input that makes both Boolean return values the wrong answer >> is a semantically invalid input.
Nope, it is a PROGRAM, thus it is VALID. If you try to define it as not valid, you are just admitting that H isn't a "Halt Decider" by the definition of Computation Theory.
Saying that it is valid because it is a program simply ignores bugs and indicates you know hardly anything about programming.
You clearly don't understand what you are talking about.
Does input D halt on its input [GOOD INPUT] or is D [BAD INPUT] that >>>> either fails to halt or defines a pathological relationship to H.
And D DOES halt on its input, since it will "call" H(D,D), which your >>> H has been defined so that it will return 0 from that call.
Which is a correct return value for the semantic property of [BAD INPUT].
But makes D(D) Halt, so it is the wrong answer for a Halt Decider.
Not at all 0 means halts or D does the opposite of whatever Boolean
value that H returns.
You are just admitting that you have been lying about working on the Halting Problem of Computation Theory, the one descibed by the Linz
paper you quote.
When I point out that the conventional halting problem is self
contradictory this is the actual halting problem that I am referring to.
Fine, everything you have said thus becomes a LIE.
There is nothing "BAD" about a D that doesn't halt,
Sure everyone knows that Denial of Service attacks are great. My
hospital loved it when they had no access to patient records for several >> days.
Except the only DOS was to the Decider. If they just ran the program, it would have ended just fine.
You just don't understand the problem you are talking about and thus you keep lying about it. You can't use the "honest mistake" excues, as the errors have been pointed out, but you refuse to correct yourself.
that just means it is an input that H needs to "reject" (return the
"Non-Halting" value for). There is also nothing "Bad" about the
"pathological" relationship between D and H, as that is just part of
"Any Program".
Yes that is true everyone loves successful Denial of Service attacks.
If there was a DoS detector that could correctly reject every
[malevolent input] people would really hate that. They love successful
DoS attacks.
But this isn't the DOS detector problem, that allows false positives.
This is the accurate Halt Decider problem, which H fails at.
You are just admitting that you have been LYING for years about what you are working on.
Remember, if you change H to be the Hn, non-aborting version of it,
and the make the Dn from that Hn, we find that Dn(Dn) will not halt,
so Hn should have returned 0, but it just never returns an answer,
showing that *H* is a defective machine, not meeting its requirements. >>>
When H reports on the semantic property of [BAD INPUT] the labels could >> be switched to account for all of the people that love successful Denial >> of Service attacks. Only inputs that allow DoS attacks are construed as >> [GOOD INPUTS]. Inputs that simply halt are now called [BAD INPUTS].
H still correctly decides a semantic property of D, thus H still refutes >> Rice.
Nope. You can't refute Rice by saying that a machine gets one input right.
FALLACY of proof by example
You are just proving your logic system is full of fallacies.
This does overcome Rice's theorem for at least the reduction of Rice's >>>> theorem to the halting problem.
Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]?
No, because Rice's theorem is does the input have Semantic Property
S, and a "pathological relationship" isn't considered a "BAD INPUT".
That is the only reason that Rice has not been overcome. No one ever
thought of a way to exclude [BAD INPUTS] thus making semantic properties >> undecidable. Once we do exclude [BAD INPUTS] then semantic properties
are decidable.
But you H doesn't successful decide on your property, as the DD that
does what H says is called "Bad input" when it doesn't meet the criteria you have defined.
ALL PROGRAMS means ALL PROGRAMS, not all the ones I can handle.
H correctly determines the semantic property of [BAD INPUT] prior to my >> work no H could ever correctly determine any semantic property. That H
does correctly determine at least a single semantic property when Rice
claims that no H can every determine any semantic property refutes Rice. >>
Nope, H gets DD wrong.
IF you wnat to try to define a Semntic Property S that somehow
includes this pathology in its criteria, you need to FORMALLY define
what you mean by it. You also need to show that the property is still >>> wholly Semantic, and that you haven't given yourself a Syntactic
property.
When-so-ever any input to any decider calls this decider with an input
that does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this decider
returns this input <is> a pathological input. My H has been able to do
that for more than two years.
But it fails on DD, so it still fail.
My system also works with embedded copies of deciders yet this makes the >> code much more difficult to understand so I didn't implement it.
I don't think it does. I think you don't understand the nature of that problem.
You also then need to show that you can get the correct answer for
ALL inputs, the Achilies Heel for a Halt Decider might not be the
Achilies Heel for your new decider, so just because you handle it,
doesn't mean you have PROVEN that you can answwer that property.
H does correctly refute Rice's theorem for the halting problem's
pathological input. This is much more success than anyone else has ever >> achieved. Once this success is acknowledged a well funded large team of >> experts can work on extending my ideas.
Nope. Remember, by YOUR definiton of Pathological, your H fails for--
DD(DD) as described above.
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
what's this chatGPT thing? I've never heard of it.
On 6/19/2023 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/19/23 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2023 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/18/2023 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:That is why I triple dog dare you to define it or acknowledge that no >>>>> such program can possibly be defined because the input D to any
On 6/18/2023 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:// The following is written in C
On 6/18/2023 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 7:41 PM, olcott wrote:If I ask you what correct (yes or no) answer of could Jack
On 6/18/2023 1:56 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 8:09:51 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote >>>>>>>>>>>> <nonsense>
A possible "practical solution" for an actual "halt decider" >>>>>>>>>>>> might be something I will call a semi-halt-decider here. >>>>>>>>>>>>
The latter allows for 3 answers (return values) when called: >>>>>>>>>>>>
H(P, d) -> 1 "P(d) halts"
H(P, d) -> -1 "P(d) doesn't halt."
H(P, d) -> 0 "Don't know/can't tell if P(d) halts or not" >>>>>>>>>>>>
Such a semi-halt-decider might be able to determine _the >>>>>>>>>>>> correct_ answer (1, -1) for a big class of casses. On the >>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, it would always have the possibility to "give >>>>>>>>>>>> up" (for certain cases) and anwer with 0: "Don't know/can't >>>>>>>>>>>> tell" (and this way be able to avoid INCORRECT ANSWERS >>>>>>>>>>>> concerning the actual behavior of P(d)).
The key difference with my work that is a true innovation in >>>>>>>>>>> this field
is that H doesn't simply give up. H specifically recognizes >>>>>>>>>>> self-
contradictory inputs and rejects them.
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks* >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Except the input isn't self-contradictory, since the input >>>>>>>>>> can't exist until H is defined, and once H is defined, the >>>>>>>>>> input has definite behavior, so there is no self-contradiction >>>>>>>>>> possilble, only error.
reply with?
Exactly why can’t you answer this?
He has no answer that is correct, but that doesn't matter and is >>>>>>>> just you faliing into the fallacy of the Red Herring.
//
01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input >>>>>>> 03
04 int D(ptr x)
05 {
06 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
07 if (Halt_Status)
08 HERE: goto HERE;
09 return Halt_Status;
10 }
11
12 void main()
13 {
14 H(D,D);
15 }
Since the above H is an unspecified wildcard you are free to
encode it
in any one of an infinite number of different ways and return any >>>>>>> Boolean value that you want.
Nope, D isn't a PROGRAM until H is DEFINED.
corresponding H is isomorphic to Jack's question posed to Jack.
SO, you AGREE that a "Correct Halt Decider", as defined by the
Halting Problem, can't exist.
I don't agree that your understanding of the halting problem is correct. >>> H is required to report on the actual behavior that it actually sees.
Where does THAT come from. It may only be ABLE to do so, but the
REQUIREMENT is the behavior of the actual machine.
You seem to have trouble with the English Languge.
Please show me any reputable reference that says you get to disregard
the ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS because you can't see what you need to do so
You and others are requiring H to report on behavior that it does not
see. You already also admitted that when H reports on this behavior that >>> it does not see that this changes this behavior that it does not see
making its report incorrect.
Yes, because that is what the requirements say. The requirements are
what the requirements say, because that is the requirements needed to
solve the mathematical problems that a Halt Decider is hoped to be
able to help with.
When the requirements are self-contradictory then they are incorrect.
Within the false hypothesis that H is incorrect to report that its input >>> does not halt, the only alternative is to change the meaning of what H
reports. When H becomes a [BAD INPUT] decider no one can correctly say
that H is wrong. This also refutes Rice which is more important that
solving the halting problem because it has a much broader scope.
That isn't a "false hypothesis", it is a stated requirement.
Since D(D) Halts, by the definition of the problem, H, to be correct,
must report Halting.
Remember:
In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of
determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and
an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run
forever.
Thus the thing to look at is the PROGRAM itself and its behavior.
DEFINITION.
When the requirements are self-contradictory then they are incorrect.
When the bible says that God <is> and God <has> wrath the bible lies.
Termination Analyzer H determines the semantic property of
[GOOD INPUT] meaning that input D halts <and>
Since the machine represented by the input does Halt, that condition
is statisfied.
Note you bad terminology, "Inputs" are just data, and don't actually
DO anything. They can have "syntactic properties", but not "Behavior".
They can represent something that does have behavior, and from the
definiton above, that is the machine they represent, NOT H's (partial)
simulation of them.
Simply ignoring that a question is self-contradictory doesn't make it
not self-contradictory.
[BAD INPUT] meaning
(a) input D doesn't halt <or>
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H. This means that D calls H
and does the opposite of the Boolean value that H returns.
Which your H never atually confirms. You H will also call an HH that
does what H says to be pathological too, so you fail at this side.
It is easy to make D a program, just define some H, any H, then D is
a valid program, and will either Halt or not. D's validity as a
program is NOT dependent on H getting the right answer. Thus an H
that just immediately returns 0 makes D a valid program.
H correctly determines that D has the semantic property of [BAD INPUT]
making Denial of Service (DoS) attack detector H correct to reject D.
Which isn't a criterial for a Halt Decider, and as I just explained
above, you don't actually detect the pathological relationship, just
that D calls H.
Instead it refutes Rice's theorem.
Once we acknowledge that the halting problem input to H is an
incorrect
to H then we can understand that this incorrect question is aptly re- >>>>> framed into the correct question:
Why is it "Incorrect"? The fact that H can't give the right answer
is a problem with H, not with the input.
Then the problem with Jack's question is Jack not the fact that Jack's
question is self-contradictory for Jack. Jack is simply too stupid to
give a correct yes or no answer to a self-contradictory question. We all >>> know that Jack's question has a correct answer, yet Jack is simply too
stupid to decide between yes and no.
The problem with "Jack's Question" is it asks about something that
doesn't have a correct answer NOW.
Sure it does you ask three people
(a) Bill says Jack will say yes
(b) John says that Jack will say no
(c) Harry say Jack will say nothing or something besides yes or no
One of them is right.
Because our imaginary Jack is fictional Harry was right.
The definition of a "Valid Input" for H, is that it represents a
Program and its input. This call sequence does that, so the input is
valid.
A syntactically valid input is not the same as a semantically valid
input. Any input that makes both Boolean return values the wrong answer
is a semantically invalid input.
Nope, it is a PROGRAM, thus it is VALID. If you try to define it as
not valid, you are just admitting that H isn't a "Halt Decider" by the
definition of Computation Theory.
Saying that it is valid because it is a program simply ignores bugs and indicates you know hardly anything about programming.
You clearly don't understand what you are talking about.
Does input D halt on its input [GOOD INPUT] or is D [BAD INPUT] that >>>>> either fails to halt or defines a pathological relationship to H.
And D DOES halt on its input, since it will "call" H(D,D), which
your H has been defined so that it will return 0 from that call.
Which is a correct return value for the semantic property of [BAD
INPUT].
But makes D(D) Halt, so it is the wrong answer for a Halt Decider.
Not at all 0 means halts or D does the opposite of whatever Boolean
value that H returns.
You are just admitting that you have been lying about working on the
Halting Problem of Computation Theory, the one descibed by the Linz
paper you quote.
When I point out that the conventional halting problem is self
contradictory this is the actual halting problem that I am referring to.
On 6/19/23 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2023 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/19/23 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2023 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/18/2023 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:That is why I triple dog dare you to define it or acknowledge that no >>>>>> such program can possibly be defined because the input D to any
On 6/18/2023 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:// The following is written in C
On 6/18/2023 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 7:41 PM, olcott wrote:If I ask you what correct (yes or no) answer of could Jack >>>>>>>>>> reply with?
On 6/18/2023 1:56 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 8:09:51 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>> <nonsense>
A possible "practical solution" for an actual "halt
decider" might be something I will call a semi-halt-decider >>>>>>>>>>>>> here.
The latter allows for 3 answers (return values) when called: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
H(P, d) -> 1 "P(d) halts"
H(P, d) -> -1 "P(d) doesn't halt."
H(P, d) -> 0 "Don't know/can't tell if P(d) halts or not" >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Such a semi-halt-decider might be able to determine _the >>>>>>>>>>>>> correct_ answer (1, -1) for a big class of casses. On the >>>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, it would always have the possibility to "give >>>>>>>>>>>>> up" (for certain cases) and anwer with 0: "Don't know/can't >>>>>>>>>>>>> tell" (and this way be able to avoid INCORRECT ANSWERS >>>>>>>>>>>>> concerning the actual behavior of P(d)).
The key difference with my work that is a true innovation in >>>>>>>>>>>> this field
is that H doesn't simply give up. H specifically recognizes >>>>>>>>>>>> self-
contradictory inputs and rejects them.
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks* >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Except the input isn't self-contradictory, since the input >>>>>>>>>>> can't exist until H is defined, and once H is defined, the >>>>>>>>>>> input has definite behavior, so there is no
self-contradiction possilble, only error.
Exactly why can’t you answer this?
He has no answer that is correct, but that doesn't matter and >>>>>>>>> is just you faliing into the fallacy of the Red Herring.
//
01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input >>>>>>>> 03
04 int D(ptr x)
05 {
06 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
07 if (Halt_Status)
08 HERE: goto HERE;
09 return Halt_Status;
10 }
11
12 void main()
13 {
14 H(D,D);
15 }
Since the above H is an unspecified wildcard you are free to
encode it
in any one of an infinite number of different ways and return any >>>>>>>> Boolean value that you want.
Nope, D isn't a PROGRAM until H is DEFINED.
corresponding H is isomorphic to Jack's question posed to Jack.
SO, you AGREE that a "Correct Halt Decider", as defined by the
Halting Problem, can't exist.
I don't agree that your understanding of the halting problem is
correct.
H is required to report on the actual behavior that it actually sees.
Where does THAT come from. It may only be ABLE to do so, but the
REQUIREMENT is the behavior of the actual machine.
You seem to have trouble with the English Languge.
Please show me any reputable reference that says you get to disregard
the ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS because you can't see what you need to do so
You and others are requiring H to report on behavior that it does not
see. You already also admitted that when H reports on this behavior
that
it does not see that this changes this behavior that it does not see
making its report incorrect.
Yes, because that is what the requirements say. The requirements are
what the requirements say, because that is the requirements needed to
solve the mathematical problems that a Halt Decider is hoped to be
able to help with.
When the requirements are self-contradictory then they are incorrect.
Whats self-contradictory of the ACTUAL QUESTION that is asked?
On 6/20/2023 6:19 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/19/23 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2023 7:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/19/23 10:30 AM, olcott wrote:
On 6/19/2023 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:Where does THAT come from. It may only be ABLE to do so, but the
On 6/18/23 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
On 6/18/2023 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:That is why I triple dog dare you to define it or acknowledge
On 6/18/2023 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:// The following is written in C
On 6/18/2023 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
On 6/18/23 7:41 PM, olcott wrote:If I ask you what correct (yes or no) answer of could Jack >>>>>>>>>>> reply with?
On 6/18/2023 1:56 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 8:09:51 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <nonsense>
A possible "practical solution" for an actual "halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider" might be something I will call a
semi-halt-decider here.
The latter allows for 3 answers (return values) when called: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
H(P, d) -> 1 "P(d) halts"
H(P, d) -> -1 "P(d) doesn't halt."
H(P, d) -> 0 "Don't know/can't tell if P(d) halts or not" >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Such a semi-halt-decider might be able to determine _the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct_ answer (1, -1) for a big class of casses. On the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> other hand, it would always have the possibility to "give >>>>>>>>>>>>>> up" (for certain cases) and anwer with 0: "Don't
know/can't tell" (and this way be able to avoid INCORRECT >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ANSWERS concerning the actual behavior of P(d)).
The key difference with my work that is a true innovation >>>>>>>>>>>>> in this field
is that H doesn't simply give up. H specifically recognizes >>>>>>>>>>>>> self-
contradictory inputs and rejects them.
*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks* >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
Except the input isn't self-contradictory, since the input >>>>>>>>>>>> can't exist until H is defined, and once H is defined, the >>>>>>>>>>>> input has definite behavior, so there is no
self-contradiction possilble, only error.
Exactly why can’t you answer this?
He has no answer that is correct, but that doesn't matter and >>>>>>>>>> is just you faliing into the fallacy of the Red Herring.
//
01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its >>>>>>>>> input
03
04 int D(ptr x)
05 {
06 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
07 if (Halt_Status)
08 HERE: goto HERE;
09 return Halt_Status;
10 }
11
12 void main()
13 {
14 H(D,D);
15 }
Since the above H is an unspecified wildcard you are free to >>>>>>>>> encode it
in any one of an infinite number of different ways and return any >>>>>>>>> Boolean value that you want.
Nope, D isn't a PROGRAM until H is DEFINED.
that no
such program can possibly be defined because the input D to any
corresponding H is isomorphic to Jack's question posed to Jack.
SO, you AGREE that a "Correct Halt Decider", as defined by the
Halting Problem, can't exist.
I don't agree that your understanding of the halting problem is
correct.
H is required to report on the actual behavior that it actually sees. >>>>
REQUIREMENT is the behavior of the actual machine.
You seem to have trouble with the English Languge.
Please show me any reputable reference that says you get to
disregard the ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS because you can't see what you
need to do so
You and others are requiring H to report on behavior that it does not >>>>> see. You already also admitted that when H reports on this behavior
that
it does not see that this changes this behavior that it does not see >>>>> making its report incorrect.
Yes, because that is what the requirements say. The requirements are
what the requirements say, because that is the requirements needed
to solve the mathematical problems that a Halt Decider is hoped to
be able to help with.
When the requirements are self-contradictory then they are incorrect.
Whats self-contradictory of the ACTUAL QUESTION that is asked?
D was intentionally defined to do the opposite
of whatever Boolean value that H returns.
D was intentionally defined to do the opposite
of whatever Boolean value that H returns.
D was intentionally defined to do the opposite
of whatever Boolean value that H returns.
D was intentionally defined to do the opposite
of whatever Boolean value that H returns.
D was intentionally defined to do the opposite
of whatever Boolean value that H returns.
When we use the criteria:
Can D correctly simulated by H ever terminate normally?
After N steps of correct simulation the execution trace of D proves that
D cannot possibly reach its final instruction and terminate normally in
any finite number of steps.
This criteria matches non-halting input and it also matches the cases
where the input D has been intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns.
When H returns 1 it means that its input halts and when H return 0
it means that either its input does not halt or D was intentionally
defined to do the opposite of whatever Boolean value that H returns.
To the best of my knowledge no one has ever made this much progress on
the halting problem's pathological input. To the best of my knowledge everyone else was completely stumped by the halting problem's
pathological input.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 384 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 59:57:01 |
| Calls: | 8,172 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,113 |
| Messages: | 5,864,379 |