Path: csiph.com!tncsrv06.tnetconsulting.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer02.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx16.iad.POSTED!not-for-mail MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.12.0 Subject: Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? Newsgroups: sci.logic,comp.theory,comp.ai.philosophy References: <871qi9oky8.fsf@bsb.me.uk>

<0613e63a-60ff-4114-b102-329f0b7f7568n@googlegroups.com>

<185907e3-f80d-4e18-9329-633db26847d9n@googlegroups.com>

From: Richard Damon Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 132 Message-ID: X-Complaints-To: abuse@easynews.com Organization: Forte - www.forteinc.com X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly. Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2023 07:38:29 -0400 X-Received-Bytes: 7533 Xref: csiph.com sci.logic:254631 comp.theory:64991 comp.ai.philosophy:29752 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: >>> On 6/18/2023 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/18/23 8:59 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/18/2023 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/18/23 7:41 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/18/2023 1:56 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 8:09:51 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>> If I ask you what correct (yes or no) answer of could Jack 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. >>>> >>> // The following is written in C >>> // >>> 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 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 > 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.