Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.software-eng > #3515 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-07-03 11:45 -0500 |
| Last post | 2022-07-03 12:17 -0500 |
| Articles | 5 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.software-eng
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Should any program that calls a halt decider be considered pathological? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-03 11:45 -0500
Re: Should any program that calls a halt decider be considered pathological? Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-03 17:55 +0100
Re: Should any program that calls a halt decider be considered pathological? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-03 12:07 -0500
Re: Should any program that calls a halt decider be considered pathological? Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-03 18:12 +0100
Re: Should any program that calls a halt decider be considered pathological? olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-03 12:17 -0500
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-03 11:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Should any program that calls a halt decider be considered pathological? |
| Message-ID | <36adnTZiR-gKWlz_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> |
On 7/3/2022 11:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > Hi! > > Should any program that calls a halt decider be considered > pathological? > > Specifically is a program that calls a halt decider but > discards the result (rather than behaving differently to what the > decider decides thereby being an "impossible program") be considered > pathological? > > Olcott's thesis is predicated on all programs that reference a halt > decider be considered pathological even though his halt decider does > not return a value to its caller which is counter to the definition of > a valid halt decider. > > /Flibble > That you are trying to refute my paper without even looking at my paper is both stupid and dishonest. This general principle refutes conventional halting problem proofs Every simulating halt decider that correctly simulates its input until it correctly predicts that this simulated input would never reach its final state, correctly rejects this input as non-halting. *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-03 17:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220703175545.000061f6@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #3515 |
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 11:45:10 -0500 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: > On 7/3/2022 11:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > Hi! > > > > Should any program that calls a halt decider be considered > > pathological? > > > > Specifically is a program that calls a halt decider but > > discards the result (rather than behaving differently to what the > > decider decides thereby being an "impossible program") be considered > > pathological? > > > > Olcott's thesis is predicated on all programs that reference a halt > > decider be considered pathological even though his halt decider does > > not return a value to its caller which is counter to the definition > > of a valid halt decider. > > > > /Flibble > > > > That you are trying to refute my paper without even looking at my > paper is both stupid and dishonest. I have no intention of reading your paper until you stop behaving dishonestly in this forum and actually start addressing the points that people are making. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-03 12:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dsOdnU5KqqR9UVz_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #3516 |
On 7/3/2022 11:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 11:45:10 -0500 > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: > >> On 7/3/2022 11:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> Hi! >>> >>> Should any program that calls a halt decider be considered >>> pathological? >>> >>> Specifically is a program that calls a halt decider but >>> discards the result (rather than behaving differently to what the >>> decider decides thereby being an "impossible program") be considered >>> pathological? >>> >>> Olcott's thesis is predicated on all programs that reference a halt >>> decider be considered pathological even though his halt decider does >>> not return a value to its caller which is counter to the definition >>> of a valid halt decider. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> That you are trying to refute my paper without even looking at my >> paper is both stupid and dishonest. > > I have no intention of reading your paper until you stop behaving > dishonestly in this forum and actually start addressing the points that > people are making. > > /Flibble > The point that you keep reinterating is that you do not fully comprehend the concept of unreachble code. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-03 18:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220703181236.00001fa3@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #3517 |
On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 12:07:43 -0500 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: > On 7/3/2022 11:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 11:45:10 -0500 > > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: > > > >> On 7/3/2022 11:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>> Hi! > >>> > >>> Should any program that calls a halt decider be considered > >>> pathological? > >>> > >>> Specifically is a program that calls a halt decider but > >>> discards the result (rather than behaving differently to what the > >>> decider decides thereby being an "impossible program") be > >>> considered pathological? > >>> > >>> Olcott's thesis is predicated on all programs that reference a > >>> halt decider be considered pathological even though his halt > >>> decider does not return a value to its caller which is counter to > >>> the definition of a valid halt decider. > >>> > >>> /Flibble > >>> > >> > >> That you are trying to refute my paper without even looking at my > >> paper is both stupid and dishonest. > > > > I have no intention of reading your paper until you stop behaving > > dishonestly in this forum and actually start addressing the points > > that people are making. > > > > /Flibble > > > > The point that you keep reinterating is that you do not fully > comprehend the concept of unreachble code. "stop behaving dishonestly in this forum" /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-03 12:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <tPidnZkO6ai9Ulz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #3518 |
On 7/3/2022 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 12:07:43 -0500 > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: > >> On 7/3/2022 11:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 11:45:10 -0500 >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On 7/3/2022 11:31 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> Hi! >>>>> >>>>> Should any program that calls a halt decider be considered >>>>> pathological? >>>>> >>>>> Specifically is a program that calls a halt decider but >>>>> discards the result (rather than behaving differently to what the >>>>> decider decides thereby being an "impossible program") be >>>>> considered pathological? >>>>> >>>>> Olcott's thesis is predicated on all programs that reference a >>>>> halt decider be considered pathological even though his halt >>>>> decider does not return a value to its caller which is counter to >>>>> the definition of a valid halt decider. >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>> >>>> That you are trying to refute my paper without even looking at my >>>> paper is both stupid and dishonest. >>> >>> I have no intention of reading your paper until you stop behaving >>> dishonestly in this forum and actually start addressing the points >>> that people are making. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> The point that you keep reinterating is that you do not fully >> comprehend the concept of unreachble code. > > "stop behaving dishonestly in this forum" > > /Flibble When you have your halt decider fork another process so that a funcction called in infinite recursion can return you its caller you cheat. Whenever a function called in infinite recursion returns to its caller it it wrong. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | comp.software-eng
csiph-web