1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. COMP.SOFTWARE-ENG

  • Re: Should any program that calls a halt decider be considered patholog

    From olcott@21:1/5 to Mr Flibble on Sun Jul 3 12:07:43 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

    On 7/3/2022 11:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 11:45:10 -0500
    olcott <[email protected]> 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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From olcott@21:1/5 to Mr Flibble on Sun Jul 3 11:45:10 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mr Flibble@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Jul 3 17:55:45 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

    On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 11:45:10 -0500
    olcott <[email protected]> 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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mr Flibble@21:1/5 to olcott on Sun Jul 3 18:12:36 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

    On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 12:07:43 -0500
    olcott <[email protected]> wrote:

    On 7/3/2022 11:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 11:45:10 -0500
    olcott <[email protected]> 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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From olcott@21:1/5 to Mr Flibble on Sun Jul 3 12:17:19 2022
    XPost: comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math

    On 7/3/2022 12:12 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 12:07:43 -0500
    olcott <[email protected]> wrote:

    On 7/3/2022 11:55 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
    On Sun, 3 Jul 2022 11:45:10 -0500
    olcott <[email protected]> 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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)