Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
| Subject | Re: Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic |
| References | (2 earlier) <u6fhtb$fogg$1@dont-email.me> <E3KiM.2296$Vpga.1840@fx09.iad> <u6fsb9$h14r$1@dont-email.me> <tcLiM.322$bv69.123@fx39.iad> <u6g8g4$imv4$1@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <35PiM.9$3XE8.8@fx42.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2023-06-15 21:41 -0400 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
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. DO you think that your H can answer correctly for EVERY possible input? If not, it isn't refutation, and shows you are just a stupid liar. You are just showing how stupid you are, thinking that a proof by a single example actually shows that something is true for ALL inputs. YOU FAIL You are just a hypocritical ingorant pathological lying idiot. Rice's theorem does NOT say that you can't make a decider on a semantic property that handles select inputs, it says you can't make a decider that decides for that property for ALL possible inputs. IF I write a program that halts if it can find a refutation for one of the great problems (like the Collatz conjecture) can it tell if the program will ever halt? I doubt it.
Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 11:50 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-15 12:57 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 12:31 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-15 15:58 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 15:29 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-15 17:16 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 18:56 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-15 21:41 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 21:00 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-15 22:32 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 22:00 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-15 23:17 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-15 22:39 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-16 07:45 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-16 09:38 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-16 19:45 -0400
csiph-web