Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.theory > #53364 > unrolled thread

Should any program that calls a halt decider be considered pathological?

Back to article view | Back to comp.theory

Contents

  Should any program that calls a halt decider be considered pathological? Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-03 17:31 +0100
    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
          Re: Should any program that calls a halt decider be considered pathological? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-03 13:49 -0400
    Re: Should any program that calls a halt decider be considered pathological? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-03 13:47 -0400

#53364 — Should any program that calls a halt decider be considered pathological?

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

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#53366

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] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53367

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]

#53368

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]

#53369

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]

#53370

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] | [next] | [standalone]

#53374

On 7/3/22 1:07 PM, olcott 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.
> 

Except that the code that you say is unreachable isn't actually 
unreachable if H does give an answer to that input.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#53373

On 7/3/22 12:31 PM, 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
> 

There is nothing "Patholgical" about one Turing Machine/Program using 
another.

In fact, the whole purpose of designing a Halt Decider is to let it be 
embedded in another program to help it decide on things.

if anything, the "Pathology" isn't in the program itself, but in doing 
BOTH the act contrary and process a representation of yourself, but 
there is nothing "incorrect" about that "pathology".

Note, one impression I get from his descriptions of H and his x86UTM 
system is that the code to H doesn't actually meet the requirements of 
the code that his system is designed to process (H calls stuff that 
"user" programs aren't allowed to do) and as such H can't actually 
emulate the code of H, so doesn't actually even attempt to correctly 
emulate calls to H but handle calls to H specially.

Thus, to Peter's H, ANY function that calls H is a pathological 
condition as it is the case that H can't actually do what it claims to 
do, that is correctly emulate its input.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.theory

csiph-web