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.

When a program input has been specifically defined to confuse a
termination analyzer it is correct to determine that the program
behavior is malevolent.

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.

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.

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.

This reasoning completely overcomes the one key objection to my work
that has persisted for two years.

*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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.

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
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H that would prevent H from
halting.

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.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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.

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

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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.

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.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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.

DO you think that your H can answer correctly for EVERY possible input?
If not, it isn't refutation, and shows you are just a stupid liar.

You are just showing how stupid you are, thinking that a proof by a
single example actually shows that something is true for ALL inputs.

YOU FAIL

You are just a hypocritical ingorant pathological lying idiot.

Rice's theorem does NOT say that you can't make a decider on a semantic
property that handles select inputs, it says you can't make a decider
that decides for that property for ALL possible inputs.

IF I write a program that halts if it can find a refutation for one of
the great problems (like the Collatz conjecture) can it tell if the
program will ever halt?

I doubt it.

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.

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.

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

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.

On 6/15/2023 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> 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",
We have covered this 10,000 times and you really don't remember or are
you trolling me?

On 6/15/23 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2023 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 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",
> We have covered this 10,000 times and you really don't remember or are
> you trolling me?
>

On 6/15/2023 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/15/23 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/15/2023 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> 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",
>> We have covered this 10,000 times and you really don't remember or are
>> you trolling me?
>>
>
> You may think you have, but you actually haven't provided a precice
> definition that can apply to Turing machines equivalents.
>
> Remember, D is supposed to have its own copy of H, and can't actually
> call the code in a different machines (thus calling the same address as
> H doesn't count).
>
> If you are going to conceed a less than turing equivalent system, you
> have conceeded that you system doesn't meet the requirements.
>
>
> If you want to say you have, give an actual reference to the message, or
> you are just shown to be the liar you are.

On 6/15/23 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/15/2023 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/23 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2023 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:

>>>> But, what EXACTLY is your definition of "Pathologica",
>>> We have covered this 10,000 times and you really don't remember or
>>> are you trolling me?
>>>
>>
>> You may think you have, but you actually haven't provided a precice
>> definition that can apply to Turing machines equivalents.
>>
>> Remember, D is supposed to have its own copy of H, and can't actually
>> call the code in a different machines (thus calling the same address
>> as H doesn't count).
>>
>> If you are going to conceed a less than turing equivalent system, you
>> have conceeded that you system doesn't meet the requirements.
>>
>>
>> If you want to say you have, give an actual reference to the message,
>> or you are just shown to be the liar you are.
>
> I have already showed this on the Peter Linz proof hundreds of times.
> Even if the input is copied it is still nested simulation that never
> stops unless aborted. Peter Linz actually replied to my email recently.
>

So, you ADMIT that you are a LIAR, and don't know what you are talking
about.

Yes, we still get the potentially infinitely nested simulation unless H
CAN detect it and abort the simulation, the problem is that your H no
longer has the ability to detect that D is calling "a simulating Halt
Decider".

You are just proving your stupidity.

This gets to the difficulty of formally defining the "Pathological
Relationship" as the "equality" of the "function" that D calls and the
decider looking at it is not computable. Your failure to understand this
just shows how little you understand what Computability is about.

On 6/16/2023 6:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/15/23 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/15/2023 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/15/23 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/2023 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>
>>>>> But, what EXACTLY is your definition of "Pathologica",
>>>> We have covered this 10,000 times and you really don't remember or
>>>> are you trolling me?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You may think you have, but you actually haven't provided a precice
>>> definition that can apply to Turing machines equivalents.
>>>
>>> Remember, D is supposed to have its own copy of H, and can't actually
>>> call the code in a different machines (thus calling the same address
>>> as H doesn't count).
>>>
>>> If you are going to conceed a less than turing equivalent system, you
>>> have conceeded that you system doesn't meet the requirements.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you want to say you have, give an actual reference to the message,
>>> or you are just shown to be the liar you are.
>>
>> I have already showed this on the Peter Linz proof hundreds of times.
>> Even if the input is copied it is still nested simulation that never
>> stops unless aborted. Peter Linz actually replied to my email recently.
>>
>
> So, you ADMIT that you are a LIAR, and don't know what you are talking
> about.
I have had enough of this. When you call me a liar that makes you a liar
because what I say that you call a lie is an easily verified fact.

*Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks

on pages 2-3 of the above paper

When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn

Simulation invariant: ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H never
reaches its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ and just like H(D,D)
will never stop running unless its simulation has been aborted.

Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks

--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

On 6/16/23 10:38 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/16/2023 6:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/15/23 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/15/2023 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/15/23 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/15/2023 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>
>>>>>> But, what EXACTLY is your definition of "Pathologica",
>>>>> We have covered this 10,000 times and you really don't remember or
>>>>> are you trolling me?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You may think you have, but you actually haven't provided a precice
>>>> definition that can apply to Turing machines equivalents.
>>>>
>>>> Remember, D is supposed to have its own copy of H, and can't
>>>> actually call the code in a different machines (thus calling the
>>>> same address as H doesn't count).
>>>>
>>>> If you are going to conceed a less than turing equivalent system,
>>>> you have conceeded that you system doesn't meet the requirements.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you want to say you have, give an actual reference to the
>>>> message, or you are just shown to be the liar you are.
>>>
>>> I have already showed this on the Peter Linz proof hundreds of times.
>>> Even if the input is copied it is still nested simulation that never
>>> stops unless aborted. Peter Linz actually replied to my email recently.
>>>
>>
>> So, you ADMIT that you are a LIAR, and don't know what you are talking
>> about.
> I have had enough of this. When you call me a liar that makes you a liar
> because what I say that you call a lie is an easily verified fact.
>
> *Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks*
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
>
> on pages 2-3 of the above paper
>
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> Simulation invariant: ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly simulated by embedded_H never
> reaches its own simulated final state of ⟨Ĥ.qn⟩ and just like H(D,D)
> will never stop running unless its simulation has been aborted.
>
>
>
>
> Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
>
>

No, I am right and you are wrong, and you just are showing that you
don't understand what you are talking about.

For instance, your FIRST sentence is based on error.

You say:
When the halting problem is construed as requiring a correct yes/no
answer to a self-contradictory question it cannot be solved.

But, the answer required is NOT "self-contradictory", as it ALWAYS has a
definite answer, The problem is your don't understand that your H needs
to be an actual Turing Machine (or equivalent), and one you fix your H
into that form, there is a definite answer to the Halting Question for
the machine H^ built on that H, it is the opposite of whatever your
claimed "correct" H happens to give. (the key is H^ isn't contradictory
to ITSELF, it is contradictory to H)

In one sense, your statement has a correct basis, because we can build
this sort of H^, that cause this sort of contradictory behavior, the
problem of creating a correct Halt Decider can not be solved, but that
doesn't negate the problem, but answers it. It is actually inpossible to
create a correct halt decider, so the "Halting Function" is determined
to be non-computable.

Then you are wrong in the second sentence:fl
The purpose of solving the halting problem is to determine non-halting
bugs and non-halting malevolent software.

That is absolutely NOT the purpose of solving the Halting Problem,
remember, the Halting Problem was create LONG before "Modern" computers
with their software, so that can't be the actual purpose of it. Its
purpose goes back to times when mathmeticians were investigating the
fundamental power of "Computations", the "Mechanical" act of solving a
problem, which had impact into the field of theorem proving.

Having started with these two errors, you have put yourself into a
corner, and totally misinterpret the actual requirements and get
yourself stuck deep in the weeds of errors.

This shows in things like you looking at H as being two totally
different programs with different behaviors both existing in the same
problem at the same time (the H that does abort and the H that doesn't)
which is a actual impossiblity and makes your whole logic just invalid
and unsound.

Yes, the fact that you have keep on repeating these errors, even after
having the errors pointed out does confirm that you are the hypocritical
ignorant pathological lying idiot that I call you.

Hypocritical, because you claim that "Correct Logic" must start from the
Truth Makers of the system, but you start with a falsehood, that H can
be two different programs.

Ignorant, because it is clear that you truely don't understand any of
the basic material of the fields you are talking about.

Pathological (liar), because you lies seem to be based on your inability
to comprend what is actually true, but are stuck into believing your own
lies.

(Pathological) Lying: because most of what you say is just incorrect,
being based on totally incorrect assumptions and logic. It isn't just an
"Honest Error", but fails the reasonable person test, a reasonable
person, when given the corrections you have received, whould see they
are incorrect, instead, you seem to just ignore the corrections, because
they just don't make sense to you, because you are stuck in your falsehood.

Idiot, because you errors are not just from a lack of knowledge, but are
also based on totally incorrect reasoning processes.

In short, you have failed to show what you are trying to show, but are
instead showing how bad you are at understanding anything about what you
talk about.