On 6/15/23 10:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2023 8:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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.
>>
> The proofs that I am aware of try to fool the semantic property detector
> with a pathological input. These proofs fail when the detector correctly
> detects that these inputs are pathological.

But, what EXACTLY is your definition of "Pathologica", which needs to be
a semantic property, and not a syntactic property (since Rice only
covers semantic properties.

If you just mean that the machine calls H, then that seems to be
discoverable without needing to actually simulate the machine, which
seems to imply that it is just syntactic.

If you means does the opposite of H, your H dosn't ever actaully confirm
that.

Also, you have the problem now that the error in the structure of your
decider becomes important. H needs to be able to take in any arbitrary
program, and thus can't detect the use of itself by a simple address
compare. D really needs its own copy of H (and make a new copy of itself
to input to provide to H). This means your H needs to be able to
recognize that D calls a function that is its equivalent, not just at
its same address.

Remember, all these theorems are stated in terms of Turing Machines, so
you system needs to be an ACTUAL equivalent to one, and that means the
input is totally distinct from the machine itself, so the representation
of D can't actually use the running copy of H, but needs to have its own
copy since the tape of a Turing Machine has no way to reference the
machine running it. This is especially true of the description of a
machine, as that machine WILL BE totally self contained and can't make
reference to something that is simulating it, since the machine needs to
be able to be run by itself and not just simulated.

>
> Try and restrict your reply to reasoning having no mere empty rhetoric
> or ad homimen attacks these things provide too much evidence that your
> rebuttals are baseless and make you look foolish.
>

So, you get so distracted by the truthful representation of your (lack
of) intelegence that you can't see how your arguments have been destroyed.

I guess that is why you make such stupid remarks, because you don't
understand the actual intellectual parts of the message.