Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.theory > #139228
| Subject | Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| References | (24 earlier) <10khg6m$2nl2r$7@dont-email.me> <xJYaR.41029$WtCb.20242@fx42.iad> <10ki5ka$33o1t$5@dont-email.me> <Vl4bR.175769$rbZb.20301@fx17.iad> <10kj7m2$33o1t$6@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <ENbbR.5238$px9c.49@fx37.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2026-01-18 15:56 -0500 |
On 1/18/26 1:10 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 1/18/26 4:28 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/18/26 3:28 AM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 1/17/26 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/17/26 9:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 1/17/26 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 1/17/26 8:20 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 1/17/26 2:45 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2026 18:52, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 2) is demonstrating some fact that is generally computable from
>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You mean judgible?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do humans get it right or do they just say easy mad hushnow
>>>>>>>> whenever
>>>>>>>> they get the chance?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the idea would be to develop and present a clear algorithm than
>>>>>>> any human can use to refactor a paradoxical program into a
>>>>>>> simpler, functionally-equivalent, but non-paradoxical form that
>>>>>>> is therefore decidable by any maximal partial decider.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is that Humans don't meet the basic requirement for
>>>>>> computation, of being deterministic.
>>>>>
>>>>> a human correctly running turing machine description is just as
>>>>> deterministic as a machine correctly running that description.
>>>>>
>>>>> except human work isn't subject to being read and contradicted by
>>>>> turing machines ...
>>>>
>>>> Sure they are, as it isn't the machine that is being contradicted,
>>>> it is the algorithm the machine is running.
>>>>
>>>> WIth Turing Machines, they are one and the same as the Turing
>>>> Machine is a direct imbodyment of the algorithm. But give that
>>>> algorithm to a
>>>
>>> only if the ct-thesis is true, which u haven't proven
>>
>> That doesn't make sense.
>>
>> The statement is that the proof of Halting being uncomputable can be
>> stated in terms of just the "algorithm" independent of the mechanizm
>> the system uses to perform it, assume just that the system is at least
>> as powerful as a Turing Machine. Being more powerful means it can
>> compute any algorithm specifiable to a Turing machine.
>
> turing completeness is not defined by the steps in the computation
> possible, it's defined by the input->output mappings that can be computed.
Yes, but by a process that IS a computation, and thus uses that sort of
operations.
The operations don't need to be defined as a Turing Machine, but do need
to be built of finite deterministic atomic steps.
The proof can be written in those terms
>
>>
>> I Point out that for a Turing Machine, the algorithm ends up being
>> directly embodied in the computation machine, but this detail doesn't
>
> ur haven't proven that turing machines are capable of running all algos
I don't need to.
But you can't have a computation without an algorithm.
>
> u also haven't proven that the "terms independent of the mechanisms the
> systems uses to perform it" are capable of running all algos
In other words, you don't think logic works. The key is that the
"decider" that we start with has to be implementable in some system or
it isn't a decider based on an algorithm.
The key is that, by definition, the finite deterministic atomic steps
need to be performable by something, or they are not the required finite.
Thus, by the simple appliction of know to be implementable alterations
(since the system must be at least as capable as a Turing Machine) we
can build, in whatever algorithmic system, the pathological algorithm.
>
>> need to be assumed in the proof.
>>
>>>
>>>> person who is mechanically following it, means the contradiction
>>>> just need to use its own copy of that algorithm and then act
>>>> contrary to it.
>>>>
>>>> Eitehr your human is being deterministic, and thus exactly following
>>>> the algorithm, and can be countered, or they are not and thus no a
>>>> computation architecture.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And if they are being deterministic, then the "paradox" still
>>>>>> works, as they will come up with an answer, (which can't change)
>>>>>> and then the input will do the opposite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, how can a paradoxical program be functionally equivalent to a
>>>>>> non- paradoxical one? That doesn't seem to match the definition of
>>>>>> equivalent.
>>>>>
>>>>> i literally demonstrated that with the ghost detector posts. maybe
>>>>> if u'd paid attention instead of just picked at points while
>>>>> ignoring the overall context...
>>>>
>>>> Nope, you hand waved claims that you could do something,
>>>>
>>>> Not showed how you could actually do it,
>>>
>>> u never asked any questions the would allow me to explain further as
>>> if u were confused by anything ... u just continually posted at
>>> various things u thot were wrong, literally never anything correct.
>>>
>>> i honestly doubt u even looked at the code, which is more important
>>> than anything else i wrote.
>>
>> I guess you are just too stupid to understand the critiques I was
>> giving you. Part of your problem is you keep on writing abstract
>> functions that you claim will do something that can't be done.
>
> it's like i'm talking a fucking brick wall sometimes.
You need to stop talking to yourself, and actually learn what you are
trying to talk about.
>
>>
>> When writing an algorithm, you don't get to just assume a task can be
>> done. You can refer to a previously developed algorithm, not to one
>> that hasn't be defined in algorithm terms (in other words, you need to
>> show HOW not just the results it gets)
>
> i'm discussing *how* a particular *interface*, a specific input/output
> contract, can coexist with the various ways a paradox can be attempted
> against it...
But "interfaces" are not "computations" so you are just in a category error.
Since the pathological input is an actual machine, it can't be built
just from an interface.
It seems you have a fundamental blind spot about what you are talking about.
>
> one needs to define how the function that is computed works, before one
> can write the actual algo...
Nope, since the pathological input uses the decider as input to its
program generator.
>
> not that i could write a general algo right now. like i've said before,
> and i hope i don't need to say again to u dick: dealing with the halting
> paradoxes and describing how a general algo can coexist with with
> paradoxical input does not suddenly grants us the number theory to then
> write a general halting algo
It seems your problem goes to not understand the basic meaning of the
terms, confusing interfaces with implementation.
The "Pathological input" is a function of the decider it is built on,
and thus its creation must come after the creation of that decider.
If you decider can only be created after the pathological input. your
decider is just not implementatable, and thus doesn't exist.
Your idea blows up on its own errors.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You seem to have the same fault as Olcott in thinking you are
>>>> allowed to presume something that isn't true, and act like it is.
>>>>
>>>> That is just a lie.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> the paradox only affects decidability, and only from a fixed set of
>>>>> points... it's doesn't produce a unique input->output mapping.
>>>>> there is always a simpler machine that compute the same input-
>>>>> >output mapping without a paradox involved.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to have a problem with your definition.
>>>>
>>>> There isn't ONE paradox input.
>>>>
>>>> There is a paradox input built for each decider.
>>>>
>>>> Each of them has a determinative input->output mapping.
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't matter if there is a simpler machine that gives the same
>>>> result, as that decider it was built on still makes an error on this
>>>> one.
>>>
>>> this isn't what i'm talking about
>>>
>>> machineA is a machine that computes some input->output mapping, and
>>> has no paradox involved, lets say the successor function:
>>>
>>> machineA = (x) -> x + 1
>>>
>>> machineB is a machine that computes the *same* input->output mapping
>>> of machineA, but at the beginning it paradoxically asks gd_haltsA if
>>> it halts on that input:
>>>
>>> machineB = (x) -> {
>>> if ( gd_haltsA(machineB, x) == HALTS )
>>> loop()
>>> else
>>> return x + 1
>>> }
>>
>> Which are NOT computationally equivalent, unless gd_haltsA(machineB,
>> x) doesn't returns HALTS.
>
> yes, gd_haltsA(machineB, x) doesn't return HALTS because doing so would
> cause machineB to loop()
But since machineB then halts, it was wrong.
Since it was ONLY od_haltsA that this input was pathological to, it did
its job.
>
>>
>> "Not halting" *IS* a mapping.
>>
>>>
>>> why is this equivalent? clearly gd_haltsA(machineB, x) cannot return
>>> HALTS or LOOPS because neither would be correct, so it will return
>>> REDUCIBLE or UNREDUCIBLE, causing the else branch to run making this
>>> obviously a successor function. more specifically it will return
>>> REDUCIBLE since refactoring out the paradox is possible by injecting
>>> the value of gd_haltsA(machineB, x):
>>>
>>
>> So, you are defining that a precondition on your gd_haltsA(machineB,
>> x) does not return HALTS, but "Reducable" which is NOT a correct
>> answer to the halting question.
>
> yes, gd_haltsA follows the ghost detector specification i posted
> earlier. in the case where HALTS/LOOPS are not possible due to being
> paradoxed by the input, it will return REDUCIBLE/UNREDUCIBLE depending
> on how deep the paradox is.
But you aren't looking at the ghost problem, only the pathological input
problem.
Ghost machines are a very different sort of machine.
>
>>
>>> machineB_reduced = (x) -> {
>>> if ( REDUCIBLE == HALTS )
>>> loop()
>>> else
>>> return x + 1
>>> }
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> heck we can construct this to be even more obviously functionally
>>> equivalent to machineA by calling it directly:
>>>
>>> machineC = (x) -> {
>>> if ( gd_haltsA(machineC, x) == HALTS )
>>> loop()
>>> else
>>> return machineA(x)
>>> }
>>>
>>> ultimately a major thesis i'm now playing around with is the notion
>>> that no paradoxical machine computes any input->output mapping that
>>> cannot be computed by some *simpler* machine involving no paradox.
>>
>> But, that is incorrect for any machine gd_haltsA(y, x) that can return
>> HALTS for a given machine y that is of a paradoxical equivalenet form.
>
> this is bizarre and unjustified claim and is really just you being
> willfully antagonistic and uncooperative.
Since all programs Halt or are Non-Halting, no other answer is correct.
>
> gd_haltsA(machienB, x) and gd_haltsA(machineB_reduce, x) involve
> different input and therefor the output can be different.
Right, but we already know that od_haltsA fails to return the right
answer for the machineB input, thus in not a correct halt detector.
>
> the semantic structure of machienB contraindicates gd_haltsA() from
> reporting HALTS/LOOPS so it must devolve into returning REDUCIBLE/
> UNREDUCIBLE, neither or which indicate a set classification based on the
> semantic property because the paradox form contradicts either one from
> *only* gd_haltsA() ...
Which are just wrong,
Just because the specific code of od_haltsA gets the wrong answer
doesn't mean that the halting behavior of machineB isn't halting.
You make the olcotting error of trying to make fixed things variable.
>
> the semantic structure of machineB_reduce does not have such paradox in
> it's construction, so gd_haltsA is free to return the set classification.
Right, but that doesn't make it right about machineB.
>
> there is no reason any partial classifier is required to classify all
> functionally equivalent machines. it's not the input->output contract
> that contradicts classification, it's the semantic structure of the code
> itself. whether something is decidable from a particular fixed point of
> reference is independent of the input->output contract it computes.
But when talking about the pathological input, we aren't talking about
partial deciders.
Your problem seems to be that you confuse the pathological programs with
the ghosts.
>
> and i'm pretty sure i just proved that for anyone who operates with a
> semblance of reason. but regrettably i appear to be stuck on a 🤡🌎
No, you are stuck with a confusion of which machine you are talking about.
>
>>
>>>
>>> which if true would mean turing completeness can be obtained by a set
>>> of machines containing no paradox! BIG if true...
>>
>> But, you first need to prove that you can do that, and that requires
>> you to assume other non-computable results are computable.
>
> all non-computable results on turing machines reduce down to the same
> kinds of semantic paradoxes
Nope.
Maybe most of the proofs of things being nn-computable are based on the
assumption of them being computable leads to a contradiction.
That doesn't mean the computation itself was based on a semantic paradox.
Look at the Busy Beaver problem, what it the semantic paradox in that
problem.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> we can actually just ignore the existence of paradoxes without
>>>>> losing anything in regards to computability.
>>>>
>>>> And the problem is the "ghosts" are not necessarily members of that
>>>> set of paradox machines, in fact, unless the decider fails by not
>>>> answering, they can't be.
>>>>
>>>> The ghost machines are machines that grow with unbounded space (so
>>>> never hit a repeat state) and no pattern exists in this growing
>>>> state to identify that it won't ever stop growing.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> which is kinda funny tbh considering that it's gone on this long as
>>>>> some great limit to computability ...
>>>>
>>>> In other words you think by ignoring machines that you can't detect
>>>> you can solve a problem.
>>>
>>> go back and read the ghost detector posts again
>>>
>>> also, did u notice how i can produce a paradox in regards to a
>>> *halting* machine??? i'm sure that's gunna fucking trigger you some
>>> how, but ur forgetting the paradoxes are built in regards to the
>>> specific interface (input/ouput contract) of the classifier ... so
>>> actually halting machines can be paradoxes!
>>
>> The problem is you are confusing the ghost machines with the paradox
>> machines.
>>
>> The paradox machines are defined in a way that for ANY machine you
>> care to create, we can create its paradox machine, that it will get
>> wrong. These machines have definite behavior, which will just be the
>> opposite of what "their" decider says about them.
>>
>> The ghost machines are machines that no always-correct partial decider
>> can decide on.
>
> no, there is *always* a partial decider that can correct decide *any*
> given machine because it's not possible under classical constraints for
> a paradox to reference all functionally-equivalent machines, let alone
> all ones that are almost functionally-equivalent.
who says it needs to be a paradox.
>
> there *must* exist a partial decider that correctly decides *any* given
> machine, same is true for ghost detectors.
Nope. At least there can't be a partial decider that is KNOWN to correct
decide a given machine.
In fact, incompleteness shows that this can't be true.
Take, for example, Godel statement G. We could build a Turing Machine
using the mathematics of PA to step through every natural number and
stop on the first one that satisfies the relationship.
If a KNOWN CORRECT partial decider existed that could answer that this
Turing Machine was non-halting, we would have a proof of G in PA.
But, that also means that we could take that proof of that decider and
the decider, and the testing Turing Machine, and encode that by the meta
system and get a number that would have satisifed the relationship, and
thus the machine should have stoped with that number.
Thus, we have a machine, that will be non-halting, but no know correct
partial decider can correctly decide it.
(Note, this is the sort of program that computation was started to look
at, programs that would attempt to solve question of theory).
>
>>
>>>
>>> the fact we can effectively enumerate all halting machines via a
>>> halting recognizer, is independent of the fact we can produce input
>>> paradoxical to other classifier specifications (in the case a halting
>>> ghost detector) that halt.
>>
>> No, you ASSUME you can. The problem is your enumeration doesn't take
>> countable steps, but hits the k^N barrier. We can not effectively
>> enumerate the reals, and you need to do the equivalent of that to do
>> your operation.
>
> i have no idea why ur bringing in the reals. we can 100% effectively
> enumerate all halting machines using a dovetailing algo and u know that...
>
Nope, that enumeration creates something related to a powerset of N,
which isn't a countable infinity and thus not effectively enumerable.
You have TWO unbounded nested loops (looping over the machines, and
looping over the steps that machine does), which yield a non-effective
enumeration.
While any boundedly named machine will be found in bounded time, the
fact that we have an unbounded number of halting machines, means you
can't reach the end in countably infinite steps, and thus not
effectively enumeratable.
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Proof that the halting problem itself is a category error Oleksiy Gapotchenko <alex.s.gap@gmail.com> - 2026-01-06 01:24 +0100
Re: Proof that the halting problem itself is a category error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-05 18:39 -0600
is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-05 23:47 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-06 19:26 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-06 19:03 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-06 22:33 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-07 00:56 -0800
yes/no questions lacking a correct yes/no answer are incorrect questions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-07 05:50 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-12 07:12 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-12 07:06 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-12 14:09 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-12 22:16 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-12 20:21 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-13 07:09 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-13 12:33 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2026-01-14 02:41 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-13 19:38 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-14 22:43 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-15 04:23 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-15 22:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-16 01:08 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-16 11:46 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-16 14:21 -0800
The essence of all Computation generically defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-16 16:58 -0600
Re: The essence of all Computation generically defined Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-16 18:21 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-16 18:21 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-16 16:43 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-16 22:24 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-16 23:23 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 07:33 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-17 18:22 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 15:31 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-17 22:33 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 19:14 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 17:24 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 20:35 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 04:44 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 22:37 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 06:45 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 10:24 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 15:55 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 13:38 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 19:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 21:11 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 00:29 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-19 23:55 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 07:59 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-20 18:30 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-23 20:36 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 00:03 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 07:17 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 08:45 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 12:26 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 10:33 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 14:52 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 12:56 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 17:25 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 14:31 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 19:52 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 18:10 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 13:20 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:05 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 16:14 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:28 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 15:50 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 21:48 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 13:59 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-27 18:31 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-28 07:34 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-28 10:33 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-02-01 07:33 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-02 10:11 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-02 18:44 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-02 23:53 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-03 07:20 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-03 11:33 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-03 21:33 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-04 07:30 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-04 21:29 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-04 18:41 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-05 07:13 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-05 10:05 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-05 19:40 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-05 18:47 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-06 09:50 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-06 10:23 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-06 18:18 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-06 16:17 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-06 19:26 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 01:59 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 11:17 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 13:42 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 14:20 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-25 13:04 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:09 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-25 13:10 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:11 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 12:43 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-28 13:16 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 13:26 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-28 13:44 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-02-01 07:33 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 06:37 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 16:42 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 20:17 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 18:40 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 22:29 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 22:12 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 07:03 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 15:08 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 12:55 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 10:44 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 15:56 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 23:09 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 00:29 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-19 22:46 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 07:59 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-20 17:36 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-23 20:52 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 14:29 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 19:52 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 19:30 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 13:20 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:08 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 17:24 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 20:01 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 11:21 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 11:43 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 19:14 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 22:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 22:05 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 07:05 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 10:15 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 15:56 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 13:50 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 22:27 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 15:01 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 19:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 20:30 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 00:29 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 22:28 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 19:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 20:51 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 00:29 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-19 22:18 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 07:59 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-20 17:55 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-21 20:07 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 09:44 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 14:36 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 19:52 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 18:24 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 13:21 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:05 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 17:36 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 21:56 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 11:39 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 11:43 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 17:17 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 14:29 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Dude <punditster@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 13:31 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-28 01:12 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Dude <punditster@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 13:29 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-28 13:37 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 14:07 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-28 07:23 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-21 19:57 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 22:21 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-17 12:17 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 08:15 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-17 18:27 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 15:31 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 09:47 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 15:31 -0500
The essence of all Computation generically defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-16 18:35 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2026-01-17 01:28 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 10:52 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-17 22:45 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 17:20 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 20:30 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 18:23 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 22:47 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 00:28 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 07:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 10:10 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 15:56 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 14:55 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 11:03 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 10:59 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2026-01-18 02:49 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 19:15 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 11:12 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2026-01-20 00:50 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-21 20:10 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2026-01-23 01:40 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-07 14:05 +0200
is the ct-thesis cooked, really? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-07 12:20 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked, really? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-08 12:11 +0200
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked, really? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-10 11:04 -0800
Exactly what are deciders in the theory of computation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-07 15:29 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 17:06 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 19:52 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 18:05 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 13:23 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:04 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 17:40 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 22:50 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 01:35 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 11:43 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 11:45 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 17:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-27 00:00 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 20:35 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 18:38 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 20:53 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 19:12 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 21:42 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 20:03 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 22:06 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 21:45 -0800
Re: Proof that the halting problem itself is a category error Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-06 15:23 +0200
Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-06 08:02 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-07 14:10 +0200
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-07 07:06 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-08 12:21 +0200
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-08 08:18 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-10 11:25 +0200
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-10 10:19 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-10 18:19 -0500
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-10 18:16 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-10 19:35 -0500
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-10 19:59 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-11 07:28 -0500
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-11 12:34 +0200
csiph-web