Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient)

From	Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp>
Newsgroups	comp.theory
Subject	Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient)
Message-ID	<20221016203156.00002bfc@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink)
References	(23 earlier) <tihehu$36a4l$3@dont-email.me> <LBX2L.203009$479c.113127@fx48.iad> <20c4a5fd-47e6-46c1-9ed5-36b0bb4d5ea2n@googlegroups.com> <tihl7b$37ab5$2@dont-email.me> <yYY2L.203010$479c.172046@fx48.iad>
Organization	Jupiter Mining Corporation
Date	2022-10-16 20:31 +0100

Show all headers | View raw

On Sun, 16 Oct 2022 15:29:34 -0400
Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote:

> On 10/16/22 3:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> > On 10/16/2022 1:24 PM, dklei...@gmail.com wrote:  
> >> On Sunday, October 16, 2022 at 10:57:02 AM UTC-7,
> >> richar...@gmail.com wrote:  
> >>> On 10/16/22 1:21 PM, olcott wrote:  
> >>>> On 10/16/2022 12:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:  
> >>>>> On 10/16/22 12:51 PM, olcott wrote:  
> >>>>>> On 10/16/2022 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:  
> >>>>>>> On 10/16/22 9:00 AM, olcott wrote:  
> >>>>>>>> On 10/16/2022 6:11 AM, Richard Damon wrote:  
> >>>>>>>>> On 10/15/22 11:13 PM, olcott wrote:  
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 9:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:  
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/22 10:22 PM, olcott wrote:  
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 9:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/22 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 7:35 PM, Python wrote:  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Demented kook Peter Olcott wrote:  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 7:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/22 6:53 PM, olcott wrote:  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 5:35 PM, Richard Damon wrote:  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/22 6:02 PM, olcott wrote:  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 4:54 PM, Python wrote:  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Demente kook Peter Olcott wrote:  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 4:13 PM, Python wrote:  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid Crand Peter Olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ..  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verbatim words* (and no more)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates its input D until H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never stop running
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unless aborted then H can abort its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of D and correctly report
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configurations.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above refers to the H that correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates its input D and does not refer to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the directly executed D(D).  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Idiot! For a simulation "correct" means
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> identical result to direct
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect means that the execution trace of D
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H diverges from the behavior that the x86
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source-code specifies.  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It does. H is incorrect.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Incorrect does not mean that the execution
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of D by H diverges from what people
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect it to be.  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is not about what people expect it to be,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another evasion tactic
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from you Peter? It is about what the *actual*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *execution* *trace* *is*.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Verifiable *fact*: your alleged simulation does
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not mach actual
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution. Different behaviors, different
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> outcomes.  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _Sipser_D()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012ae] 55             push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012af] 8bec           mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012b1] 8b4508         mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012b4] 50             push eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012b5] 8b4d08         mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012b8] 51             push ecx
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012b9] e880fdffff     call 0000103e
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012be] 83c408         add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c1] 85c0           test eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c3] 7404           jz 000012c9
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c5] 33c0           xor eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c7] eb05           jmp 000012ce
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012c9] b801000000     mov eax,00000001
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012ce] 5d             pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012cf] c3             ret
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0034) [000012cf]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sipser_H: Begin Simulation   Execution Trace
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stored at:111fa8
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    machine   stack     stack     machine
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly address   address   data      code
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  language ========  ========  ========
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ========= =============
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012ae][00111f94][00111f98] 55         push
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ebp // Begin Sipser_D
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012af][00111f94][00111f98] 8bec       mov
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ebp,esp [000012b1][00111f94][00111f98] 8b4508
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012b4][00111f90][000012ae] 50         push
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eax // push Sipser_D
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012b5][00111f90][000012ae] 8b4d08     mov 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012b8][00111f8c][000012ae] 51         push
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ecx // push Sipser_D
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000012b9][00111f88][000012be] e880fdffff call
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0000103e // call Sipser_H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sipser_H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Detected Simulation Stopped
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An honest person will agree that the execution
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of D simulated by H precisely corresponds
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the behavior that the x86 source code of D
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies up to the point of the seventh
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction of D.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A technically competent person will agree the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the above execution trace of D by H shows that D
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will never stop running unless H aborts its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of D.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is not correctly refutable*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But since D calls the H that WILL abort is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and return 0 to D so the H simulating
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that doesn't NEED to abort (but it will because
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it was prorammed to).  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A technically competent person will agree...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Apparently not you)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What did I say wrong?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you not agree that H(D) will return 0, ALWAYS?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The correct halt status is based on the behavior of D
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H.  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not correct to conclude (from a simulation or
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other mean) that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a program that halts does not halt.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What's wrong with you, Peter? How can you be that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stupid?  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing wrong with me. What is wrong with you is that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't have the technical competence to validate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I have said.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *It is completely proven that D correctly simulated by
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H never halts*  
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Then why does D halt when run, since the definition of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulating a machine is matching the behavior
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> of the direct running of it?  
> >>>>>>>>>>>> You don't seem to have enough computer science to verify
> >>>>>>>>>>>> page 3 of my paper. Only people having this much
> >>>>>>>>>>>> computer science can understand what I am saying.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Rebutting the Sipser Halting Problem Proof*
> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364302709_Rebutting_the_Sipser_Halting_Problem_Proof
> >>>>>>>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> You mean find the flaw?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> An H that actually answers H(D) doesn't find D stuck in
> >>>>>>>>>>> infinite recursion, because it isn't in one.  
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> It can find that D stuck in recursive simulation that must
> >>>>>>>>>> be aborted so that H can report.  
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Except that if the H that is doing this will abort, we know
> >>>>>>>>> that since D uses an copy of this exact algorithm, the H
> >>>>>>>>> that D is using will do the same thing and thus not get
> >>>>>>>>> "caught" in the loop that you think you see.
> >>>>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>   > Yes, If H never aborts its simulation, then THAT H, the
> >>>>>>>> one > that never aborts its simulation, never answers, and
> >>>>>>>> the D > based on it is non-halting.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Do you understand that this means that it proves that no D
> >>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H can possibly reach its own final
> >>>>>>>> state in 1 to ∞ steps of correct simulation?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing machine will halt
> >>>>>>>> whenever it enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>  
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes, no D can exist that reaches a final state based on an H
> >>>>>>> that NEVER aborts its simulation and thus does a complete
> >>>>>>> simulation
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Now, unless you are going to stipulate that your H is NEVER
> >>>>>>> going to abort its simulation, that doesn't apply to your H.  
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sure it does D that has had 1 to ∞ correctly simulated by any
> >>>>>> simulating halt decider H would never reach its final state
> >>>>>> and halt.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not THIS D, all those were DIFFERENT D built on DIFFERENT H's
> >>>>>  
> >>>>
> >>>> I understand that your shell game is overcome when every element
> >>>> of the infinite set of H/D combinations has the same non-halting
> >>>> property for each D in this set.
> >>>>
> >>>>  
> >>> Nope, proven otherwise.
> >>>
> >>> Those D's built on an H that NEVER aborts are non-hatling.
> >>>
> >>> Those D's bilt on an H that does abort and return 0 are Halting
> >>> and return 1.
> >>>
> >>> None of those H's are correct.
> >>>
> >>> Care to prove otherwise?
> >>>
> >>> FORMALLY PROVE, not just claim. That means STEP BY STEP from
> >>> generally accepted principles.
> >>>
> >>> I don't think you know how to do such a formal proof, or even know
> >>> enough of the field to know what are generally accepted
> >>> principles to start your arguement.  
> >>
> >> I have long thought it odd that someone who thinks truth is spread
> >> by logical reasoning doesn't seem able to write a logical proof.
> >>  
> > 
> > In other words you did not notice his strawman deception here is
> > what I said: Every D correctly simulated by any H never reaches its
> > final state and halts.
> > 
> > Richard never refers to the D correctly simulated by H.  
> 
> Because the D correctly simulated by H is only processed by an H that 
> never answers.
> 
> Thus you are claiming that an H that never  gives an answer gives the 
> right answer, which is a LIE.
> 
> Or, you are talking about an H simulating a D that wasn't built on
> it, and thus it is a LIE that you are doing the stated problem.
> > 
> > Except here:
> > On 10/13/2022 10:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:  
> >  > Yes, If H never aborts its simulation, then THAT H, the one
> >  > that never aborts its simulation, never answers, and the D
> >  > based on it is non-halting.  
> > 
> > It is also the case in the Linz proof that every ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly 
> > simulated by any embedded_H never reaches is final state and halts.
> >   
> 
> Right, and NONE of those H's give an answer, so fail to be deciders.
> 
> The ONLY cases where you are right about the machines being
> non-halting are cases where you "deciders" fail to answer, and so are
> not Deciders.
> 
> Thus, you are caught in your lie.
> 
> You are just proving that you don't know enough of the basics of what
> a program is to understand your failings.
> 
> YOU FAIL.

How many times have to told Olcott this and how many more times will
you keep telling him this? Can't you see the futility of it? Olcott's
obtuseness knows no bounds.

/Flibble

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Olcott lies Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 19:23 +0200
  Re: Olcott lies Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-14 20:36 +0100
    Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 14:49 -0500
      Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 16:04 -0400
        Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 15:19 -0500
          Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 16:31 -0400
            Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 15:45 -0500
              Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 16:56 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 16:20 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 17:49 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 17:21 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 19:04 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 18:12 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 19:21 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 18:32 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 19:37 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 18:59 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:06 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-18 14:43 -0500
      Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-14 23:05 +0100
        Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 17:34 -0500
          Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 01:07 +0200
          Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 19:11 -0400
            Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 18:17 -0500
              Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 01:21 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 18:43 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 19:59 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:03 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:22 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:10 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:26 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 19:31 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 02:04 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:13 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 02:51 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 20:41 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 03:58 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 21:13 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 04:22 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 21:42 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 22:50 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 21:54 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 23:16 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 22:34 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 06:42 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 12:01 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 08:20 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 09:29 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 08:33 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 09:50 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:30 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 10:54 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 10:02 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 11:30 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 22:24 -0400
              Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 19:35 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 18:46 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:03 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:19 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:30 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 19:33 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:42 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 22:16 -0700
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 08:16 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 14:18 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provablY correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 08:25 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 09:30 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 08:48 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 10:12 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:33 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 16:36 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 11:00 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 10:22 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 11:34 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 02:05 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:17 -0500
          Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-15 01:37 +0100
            Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:48 -0500
    Re: Olcott lies Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 15:58 -0400
      Re: Olcott lies Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-15 02:05 +0100
    Re: Olcott lies Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-15 02:03 +0100
      Re: Olcott lies Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-15 03:22 +0100
        Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike makes sure to never pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 21:36 -0500
          Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-15 16:44 +0100
            Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 11:50 -0400
            Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 11:00 -0500
              Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 18:06 +0200
              Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-15 17:13 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 11:19 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Sergi o <invalid@invalid.com> - 2022-10-15 12:14 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 12:28 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Sergi o <invalid@invalid.com> - 2022-10-15 14:06 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 14:11 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Sergi o <invalid@invalid.com> - 2022-10-15 14:53 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 11:50 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 14:19 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 13:28 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 14:46 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 13:57 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 15:04 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 14:13 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 15:27 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 14:31 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 15:47 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) [better wording] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 11:54 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) [better wording] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 17:58 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct [ strawman deception ] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 12:08 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 00:40 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 07:05 -0400
              Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 14:17 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 13:26 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 14:48 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 14:55 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 14:02 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 15:19 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 14:26 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 15:32 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 14:50 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 16:30 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 15:36 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 22:46 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 15:51 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 21:55 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 16:05 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 23:13 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 16:49 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 23:54 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 17:02 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 18:35 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 17:53 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 20:20 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 19:28 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-16 02:35 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 20:45 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 22:01 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 21:22 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 22:43 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 22:13 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 11:57 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 07:11 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 08:00 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 14:03 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 12:37 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-16 11:51 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 13:00 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 12:21 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 18:33 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 12:34 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-16 19:43 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 14:30 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-16 21:38 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 15:41 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) ++ olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-16 18:23 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) ++ Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 19:29 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) ++ olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 18:34 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) ++ Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 20:53 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) ++ olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-16 20:05 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) ++ Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 21:29 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 13:56 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 11:24 -0700
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 14:14 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 15:29 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 20:31 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 13:47 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 14:53 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 20:39 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 20:49 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 22:05 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 21:17 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 22:50 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 22:11 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 11:58 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-16 14:02 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-10-16 07:19 -0600
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 09:39 -0500
                Re: Olcott's business degree Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-16 16:20 +0100
                Re: Olcott's business degree olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 10:26 -0500
                Re: Olcott's business degree Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 13:44 -0400
                Re: Olcott's business degree Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-10-16 12:21 -0600
                Re: Olcott's business degree André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-10-16 10:16 -0600
                Re: Olcott's business degree Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-16 18:22 +0200
                Re: Olcott's business degree olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 11:34 -0500
                Re: Olcott's business degree Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-16 18:58 +0200
                Re: Olcott's business degree André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-10-17 20:50 -0600
                Re: Olcott's business degree Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-18 03:58 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably incorrect (Mike's software engineering skills may be sufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 08:17 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably incorrect (Mike's software engineering skills may be sufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 07:52 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably incorrect (Mike's software engineering skills may be sufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 12:43 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably incorrect (Mike's software engineering skills may be sufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 12:18 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably incorrect (Mike's software engineering skills may be sufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 13:46 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-16 13:53 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 09:51 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-16 01:36 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 18:48 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 18:33 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 17:15 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 22:56 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 16:42 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 22:49 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 23:51 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 16:56 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 16:03 -0700
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 18:36 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 18:03 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 16:06 -0700
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 20:29 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 16:55 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 16:02 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 17:18 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 20:32 +0100
            Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 00:31 -0500
              Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 07:07 -0400
        Re: Olcott lies Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-16 01:28 +0100
          Re: Olcott proves that he is correct olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 20:37 -0500
          Re: Olcott lies Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-18 16:17 +0100
            Re: Olcott is proven to be correct to all those paying attention (hardly any) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-18 10:37 -0500
            Re: Olcott lies Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-20 02:44 +0100
              Re: Olcott is provably correct to anyone that pays attention olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-19 20:51 -0500
              Re: Olcott lies Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-19 22:00 -0400
                Re: Olcott is proven to be correct. olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-19 22:58 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-20 10:08 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-20 12:09 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 07:22 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 06:08 -0700
                Re: Turing machines and practical computation Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 14:11 +0000
                Re: Turing machines and practical computation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 17:25 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-20 15:18 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 16:28 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 15:50 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 18:23 -0400
                Re: [still about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 18:07 -0500
                Re: [still about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 20:16 -0400
                Re: [still about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 19:45 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-21 00:40 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 20:26 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-21 23:32 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-21 20:09 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2022-10-21 23:07 -0700
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-22 10:06 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 08:45 -0700
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-22 20:05 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-22 16:13 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-24 17:45 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-24 22:46 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-29 18:44 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-29 14:50 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2022-10-30 05:19 -0700
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-10-21 18:11 -0600
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-21 21:25 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 09:54 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-20 16:25 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-20 11:05 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 11:09 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 18:36 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-20 20:18 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-21 00:52 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-21 02:08 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-10-20 19:58 -0600
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 21:08 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-22 01:00 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-22 00:32 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-23 20:34 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-24 00:29 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-21 11:12 +0200
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-21 13:04 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-25 09:29 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-26 06:06 +0200
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-26 10:32 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-27 08:20 +0200
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-27 11:16 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-27 18:46 +0200
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-27 12:06 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-27 20:45 +0200
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-27 13:56 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-27 18:27 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-27 17:53 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2022-10-27 19:27 -0400
        Re: Olcott lies olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 00:24 -0500
          Re: Olcott lies Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 07:11 -0400
  Re: Olcott lies Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 13:00 -0700
    Re: Olcott lies Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-14 21:04 +0100
    Re: Olcott lies Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 16:33 -0400
      Re: Olcott lies Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 14:17 -0700
        Re: Olcott lies Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 01:15 +0200
          Re: Olcott corrects Python's notation olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 18:20 -0500
            Re: Olcott corrects Python's notation Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 01:22 +0200
          Re: Olcott lies Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 17:04 -0700
            Re: Olcott lies Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 02:12 +0200
              Re: Olcott corrects Pythons notations olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 19:23 -0500
              Re: Olcott lies Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 20:35 -0700
  Re: Olcott lies Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-15 01:44 +0100
    Re: Olcott proves that he is correct olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 20:04 -0500
    Re: Olcott proves that he is correct olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 20:27 -0500

csiph-web