XPost: comp.theory
From: chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com
On 10/28/2025 5:56 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> On 10/28/2025 5:33 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 10/28/2025 7:25 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-10-29, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 10/28/2025 6:52 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-10-28, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/28/2025 5:14 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-10-28, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2025 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2025 2:37 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-28, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/28/2025 11:35 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-10-28, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Deciders only compute a mapping from their actual
>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs. Computing the mapping from non-inputs is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> outside of the scope of Turing machines.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Calculating the halting of certain inputs is indeed impossible
>>>>>>>>>>>> for some halting algorithms.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Not just impossible outside of the scope of every Turing
>>>>>>>>>>> machine.
>>>>>>>>>>> Its the same kind of thing as requiring the purely mental object
>>>>>>>>>>> of a Turing machine to bake a birthday cake.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It simply isn't. Inputs that are not correctly solvable by some
>>>>>>>>>> deciders are decided by some others.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> THIS INPUT IS SOLVABLE
>>>>>>>>> THE NON-INPUT IS OUT-OF-SCOPE
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then why do you claim that H(D) must decide on this non input?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because he claims that D is two things; it has two properties:
>>>>>>> D.input and D.noninput.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H(D) is solving D.input (as machines are required) and (believe
>>>>>>> him when he says) that D.input is nonterminating.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is terminating is D.noninput (he acknowledges).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good job.
>>>>>> Your naming conventions make things very clear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If some H_other decider is tested on H_other(D), then the "Olcott
>>>>>>> reality distortion wave function" (ORDF) collapses, and D.input
>>>>>>> becomes the same as D.noninput.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *So we need to clarify*
>>>>>> D.input_to_H versus
>>>>>> D.non_input_to_H which can be:
>>>>>> D.input_to_H1
>>>>>> D.executed_from_main
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I take Rice's semantic properties of programs and
>>>>>> clarify that this has always meant the semantic
>>>>>> properties of finite string machine descriptions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I further divide this into
>>>>>> (a) semantic properties of INPUT finite strings
>>>>>> (b) semantic properties of NON_INPUT finite strings
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is that "input" is just a role of some datum in a context,
>>>>> like a function
>>>>>
>>>>> The input versus non-input distinction cannot be found in any
>>>>> binary digit of the bit string comprising the datum itself.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Unless you bother to pay attention to the fact that
>>>> the sequence of steps of D simulated by H is a different
>>>> sequence of steps than D simulated by H1.
>>>
>>> How do we know what is correct?
>>>
>>
>> Because all deciders only report on what their
>> input specifies H(D)==0 and H1(D)==1 are both correct.
>>
>>> Suppose I'm given an input D, and two deciders X and Y.
>>> I know nothing about these. (But they are simulating deciders,
>>> producing different executions.)
>>>
>>> X accepts, Y rejects.
>>>
>>> Do I regard both of them as right? Or one of them wrong?
>>> If so, which one? Or both wrong?
>>>
>>> Suppose I happen to be sure that D halts. So I know X is correct.
>>>
>>
>> As far as a DOS (denial of service) attack
>> goes H(D)==0 correctly rejects its input.
>
> Imvvho, I don't think you know what to do with a proper DOS, or a DDOS.
> Think if a bunch of connections some in, they send some commands to the
> server, communicate a little, then stop for say a random amount of time,
> then continue, then stop. Then a flood of connections come in that
> execute commands that upload/download big random files, over and over
> again. Some of them say done!, Some of them hang around for say 20
> minutes holding your socket open. I don't think you know what a DOS even
> is? Humm... lol.
> [...]
>
The fun part is that the connections can come from infected computers as
well... ;^)
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
