Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.theory > #139187
| Subject | Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, comp.software-eng |
| References | (20 earlier) <10kelvg$21adq$5@dont-email.me> <FhDaR.85970$KF5d.26695@fx43.iad> <10kfdcl$29fu8$1@dont-email.me> <dkLaR.153098$Ij5a.50441@fx15.iad> <10khj77$2nl2r$8@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <HrYaR.81293$68Za.60209@fx09.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2026-01-17 22:28 -0500 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 1/17/26 10:14 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 1/17/26 4:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 1/17/26 2:23 AM, dart200 wrote: >>> On 1/16/26 7:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 1/16/26 7:43 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>> On 1/16/26 3:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 1/16/26 5:21 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/16/26 8:46 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/16/26 4:08 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/15/26 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 1/15/26 7:23 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> bro stick a giant dildo up ur asshole u hypocritical fuckface... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> when i tried to suggest improvements to the computational >>>>>>>>>>> model, like RTMs, u then told me i *can't* do that because >>>>>>>>>>> muh ct- thesis, and here u are crying about how no superior >>>>>>>>>>> method has been found as if u'd ever even tried to look past >>>>>>>>>>> the ct- thesis... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, you didn't suggest improvements to the model, you just >>>>>>>>>> showed you don't knoww what that means. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You don't get to change what a "computation" is, that isn't >>>>>>>>>> part of the "model". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> you honestly could have just said that cause the rest of this >>>>>>>>> is just u repeating urself as if that makes it more correct >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But I HAVE said it that simply, and you rejected it as you think >>>>>>>> you get to, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> but repeating urself doesn't make it more true >>>>>> >>>>>> And your ignoring it doesn't make it false. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The model would be the format of the machine, and while your >>>>>>>>>> RTM might be a type of machine that could be thought of, they >>>>>>>>>> don't do COMPUTATIONS, as it violates the basic rules of what >>>>>>>>>> a compuation IS. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Computations are specific algorithms acting on just the input >>>>>>>>>> data. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A fundamental property needed to reach at least Turing >>>>>>>>>> Complete ability, is the ability to cascade algorithms. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Your RTM break that capability, and thus become less than >>>>>>>>>> Turing Complete. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> i'm sorry, RTMs are literally just TMs with one added >>>>>>>>> instruction that dumps static meta-data + copies tape ... how >>>>>>>>> have they *lost* power with that??? clearly they can express >>>>>>>>> anything that TMs can ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which means you don't understand how "TM"s work, as they don't >>>>>>>> have that sort of "instructions". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> fuck dude sorry "operation" is the term turing used, i added to >>>>>>> the list of possible operations with RTMs, my god dude... >>>>>> >>>>>> But the only "operations" that a turing machine does is write a >>>>>> specified value to the tape, move the tape, and change state. >>>>> >>>>> yes RTMs are an extension of TMs, please do pay attention >>>> >>>> Nope, because they don't have the actual form of a TM. >>>> >>>> Their operations isn't by the basic principles of a TM. >>>> >>>> I think your problem is you don't actually know how a TM works, and >>>> thus this is meaningless. >>>> >>>> Please try to show how you would actually DEFINE in a system similar >>>> to how you would define a regular TM one of your RTMS. >>> >>> RTMs can run TM machine_descriptions directly without modification >>> because REFLECT is just an operation that need not be used in the >>> computation >> >> So, you admit you can't do it, or are just too stupid to understand >> what it means to DEFINE something. > > take the TM definition and add REFLECT to it's set of possible operations. > > regurgitation a TM definition to do that is not interesting to me, i'm > sure a gpt can help u out with that. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> Not just hand-waving arguement, and actually encoded RTM that looks >>>> like just an extension of some TM that has been encoded, and an >>>> explaination of how such a hardware platform could be constructed. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> see how fucking unhelpful u are??? >>>>>> >>>>>> So, how is your "operation" of the same class as what they do? >>>>> >>>>> cause it's just as mechanically feasible. mechanical feasibility to >>>>> self-evident just like with the other rules of turing machines. >>>> >>>> No, it is trying to put a hyper-cube into a flat plane drawing of a >>>> square. >>>> >>>> It seems you are just showing that you don't understand what you are >>>> actually talking about, but are trying to baffle people with your >>>> bullshit hopeing they won't notice your ignorance. >>> >>> or u just don't understand what i mean by RTM, >> >> I think understand what you are trying to do. But your problem is you >> don't seem to understand it well enough to actually define it. >> >>> >>> maybe ur just too old for me teach any new tricks... >> >> I doubt that. I think it is more that you are too ignorant of the >> field to understand your issues. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Try to specify the tuple that your "operation" is. >>>>> >>>>> idk what you mean by this, REFLECT is just another operation like >>>>> HEAD_LEFT, HEAD_RIGHT, or WRITE_<symbol>, the. transition table has >>>>> a list of transition functions: >>>> >>>> So, it is a "tape motion". and how do you move the tape a "reflect"? >>> >>> it's a tape operation like all the rest of the operations >> >> No, it isn't. WHich way is "Reflect" >> >> The closest that can means is flip the tape end to end. >> >> Your problem is you don't seem to understand the need to specify in >> precise detail what that instruction does. > > i've described what REFLECT does several times to you by now, clearly u > aren't paying attention so idk why one more time would make a difference: > > REFLECT will cause a bunch of machine meta-information to be written to > the tape, starting at the head, overwriting anything its path. at the > end of the operation, the head will still be in the same position as at > the start of the operation. the information written to tape will include > 3 components: > > - machine description > - current state transition > - current tape (the tape state before command runs) > > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> cur_state, head_symbol -> action, nxt_state >>>>> >>>>> and REFLECT goes into the action slot specifying the action that >>>>> should be taking to transition the tape to the next step. >>>> >>>> That isn't an "action" slot, in classic representation it is a >>>> binary field for tape motion direction. >>> >>> richard, please do actually read turing's paper one of these days. >>> i've already posted at you his first machine description in text, and >>> now i'll post it in image form: >>> >>> https://imgur.com/a/pzhHTMb >> >> So, And did you read the descriptions of what those operations were. >> >> Have you looked at how the description evolved over time as it was >> refined. >> >>> >>> do let me know when ur done with retardedly quibbling over syntax so >>> we can actually get around to discussing semantics one of these days, >> >> When you actually DEFINE what you mean by your "Reflect" instruction, >> as an actually implementable operation. >> >>> >>> god i wish i had someone like turing to discuss this with, but so far >>> ur the only still responding to any depth. >> >> I don't think it would help. > > agree to disagree dick > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And, any algorithm that actually USES their capability to >>>>>>>>>> detect if they have been nested will become incorrect as a >>>>>>>>>> decider, as a decider is a machine that computes a specific >>>>>>>>>> mapping of its input to its output, and if that result changes >>>>>>>>>> in the submachine, only one of the answers it gives (as a >>>>>>>>>> stand-alone, or as the sub- machine) can be right, so you just >>>>>>>>>> show that it gave a wrong answer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> u have proof that doesn't work yet you keep asserting this is >>>>>>>>> the "one true way". seems like u just enjoy shooting urself in >>>>>>>>> the foot, with the only actual rational way being it's just the >>>>>>>>> "one true way" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IT IS DEFINITION. Something you don't seem to understand. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Computation" is NOT defined by what some machine does, that is >>>>>>>> algorithms and results. "Computation" is the mapping generated >>>>>>>> by it, which MUST be a specific mapping of input to output. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> no one has defined "computation" well enough to prove that turing >>>>>>> machines can compute them all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> that's why it's the ct-thesis dude, not ct-law, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ur just affirming the consequent without proof. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, the DEFINITION of a computation defines what it can be >>>>>> irrespective of the actual machinery used to perform it. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is, by definition, the algorithm computing of a given mapping. >>>>>> >>>>>> Said maps, are BY DEFINITION mappings from the "input" to the >>>>>> "output". >>>>>> >>>>>> If the machine can produce two different output from the same >>>>>> input, the machine can not be a computation. >>>>> >>>>> a context-dependent computation is computing a mapping that isn't >>>>> directly specified by the formal input params. it's computing a >>>>> mapping of: >>>>> >>>>> (context, input) -> output >>>> >>>> WHich means that you are calling context as part of your input. >>>> >>>> But you alse say that you can't set it, so you >>> >>> the context comes from REFLECT >> >> So, "Reflect" makes up the context? How does it know what to do? > > not answering to red herrings from someone who isn't paying attention in > the slightest > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> or more generally just >>>>> >>>>> context -> output >>>>> >>>>> since the formal input is just a specific part of the context. and >>>>> the reason we got stuck on the halting problem of a fucking century >>>>> is ignoring that context matters. >>>> >>>> And thus you system no longer has composition, as you have defined >>>> that the context wasn't changable by the "caller" of a sub-computation. >>>> >>>> This makes your system strictly LESS powerful than a Turing Machine. >>> >>> no it doesn't because using context is an optional feature, not a >>> requirement for RTM machine descriptions. like i said RTMs can run >>> TMs directly so they include all TM computations as well. >> >> You don't seem to understand, that the fact that the sub-computation >> COULD use the reflect operation means that you can't control its input. > > machines are well defined at the start the machine, so whether it does > or does not utilize REFLECT is knowable before the machine runs u moron > >> >> Thus, perhaps the better way to say it is the computations able to be >> done with machines that actually use your feature, are less-than Turng >> Complete. >> >> There is nothing that you RTMs can do that a TM can't do, except to >> define handcuffs for themselves. >> >> The USE of your extention weakens the machine, >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> add that to list of the growing fallacies i've pointed out in ur >>>>>>> recent arguments, which i'm sure ur not actually tracking, as >>>>>>> that would be far more honesty than u are capable of putting out. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, what is the fallacy? >>>>> >>>>> AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT >>>> >>>> Where did I do that. >>>> >>>> I stated the DEFINITION of the term, something it seems you are just >>>> aferming you don't understand. >>> >>> what makes that definition right beyond you repeating yourself? >>> sometimes we get definitions wrong dude. >> >> Because it IS the definition. > > not an argument Ok, so you are just admitting that you are stupid, illogical, and a liar. Good luck starving to death when your money runs out. > >> >> I guess you don't understand the rules of logic. > > also not an argument Again, YOUR PROBLEM. > >> >>> >>> it's pretty crazy i can produce a machine (even if u haven't >>> understood it yet) that produces a consistent deterministic result >>> that is "not a computation". >> >> Because you get that result only by equivocating on your definitions. >> >> If the context is part of the inpt to make the output determistic from >> the input, then they fail to be usable as sub-computations as we can't >> control that context part of the input. >> >> When we look at just the controllable input for a sub-computation, the >> output is NOT a deterministic function of that inut. >> >>> >>> not sure what the fuck it's doing if it's not a computation >> >> Its using hidden inputs that the caller can't control. > > which we do all the time in normal programming, something which > apparently u think the tHeOrY oF CoMpUtInG fails to encapsulate Right, but that isn't about computations. > > pretty crazy we do a bunch "non-computating" in the normal act of > programming computers Why? As I have said, "Computatations" is NOT about how modern computers work. I guess you are just showing that you fundamentally don't understand the problem field you are betting your life on. > >> >> Showing that you really don't understand what you are talking about. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems you just assume you are allowed to change the definition, >>>>>> perhaps because you never bothered to learn it. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is sort of like the problem with a RASP machine >>>>>>>>>> architecture, sub- machines on such a platform are not >>>>>>>>>> necessarily computations, if they use the machines capability >>>>>>>>>> to pass information not allowed by the rules of a computation. >>>>>>>>>> Your RTM similarly break that property. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Remember, Computations are NOT just what some model of >>>>>>>>>> processing produce, but specifically is defined based on >>>>>>>>>> producing a specific mapping of input to output, so if (even >>>>>>>>>> as a sub- machine) a specific input might produce different >>>>>>>>>> output, your architecture is NOT doing a computation. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And without that property, using what the machine could do, >>>>>>>>>> becomes a pretty worthless criteria, as you can't actually >>>>>>>>>> talk much about it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> the output is still well-defined and deterministic at runtime, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not from the "input" to the piece of algorithm, as it includes >>>>>>>> "hidden" state from outside that input stored elsewhere in the >>>>>>>> machine. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> context-dependent computations are still computations. the fact >>>>>>>>> TMs don't capture them is an indication that the ct-thesis may >>>>>>>>> be false >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. Not unless the "context" is made part of the "input", and >>>>>>>> if you do that, you find that since you are trying to make it so >>>>>>>> the caller can't just define that context, your system is less >>>>>>>> than turing complete. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your system break to property of building a computation by the >>>>>>>> concatination of sub-computations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ...including a context-dependent sub-computation makes ur overall >>>>>>> computation context-dependent too ... if u dont want a context- >>>>>>> dependent computation don't include context-dependent sub- >>>>>>> computation. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which makes it not a computation. >>>>>> >>>>>> PERIOD. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fallacy of equivocation. >>>>> >>>>> i'm not shifting meaning dude. i'm directly claiming it's a >>>>> distinct type of computation that has been ignored by the theory of >>>>> computing thus far >>>>> >>>>> nice try tho >>>> >>>> But you don't actually do that, as you then claim to be in the same >>>> field to solve a problem specified in the field. >>>> >>>> As I said, if you want to try to define a new field based on a new >>>> definition of what a computation is, go ahead. >>> >>> it's not a new field, it's a mild extension of turing machines, with >>> one new operation. >> >> No, it is, as you are changing essential core defintions. >> >> That is like saying that spherical geometery is the same field as >> plane geometry, we just added a small extension. > > what the did the nut say when it was all grown up??? > >> >>> >>>> >>>> You need to work out your formal definition. >>>> >>>> Show how the system actually works out. >>>> >>>> Show what it can show. >>>> >>>> And show why anyone would want to use it. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> but in order to be complete and coherent, certain computations >>>>>>> *must* have context-awareness and are therefore context- >>>>>>> dependent. these computations aren't generally computable by TMs >>>>>>> because TMs lack the necessary mechanisms to grant context- >>>>>>> awareness. >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words, you require some computations to not be actual >>>>>> computations. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> unless u can produce some actual proof of some computation that >>>>>>> actually breaks in context-dependence, rather than just listing >>>>>>> things u assume are true, i won't believe u know what ur talking >>>>>>> about >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The definition. >>>>>> >>>>>> A computation produces the well defined result based on the INPUT. >>>>> >>>>> context-dependent computation simply expands it's input to include >>>>> the entire computing context, not just the formal parameters. it's >>>>> still well defined and it grants us access to meta computation that >>>>> is not as expressible in TM computing. >>>>> >>>>> ct-thesis is cooked dude >>>> >>>> Nope, because you are just putting yourself outside the field it is >>>> written about. >>>> >>>> You can't change the definition of a computation, and still talk >>>> about things as if you were in the same system. >>> >>>> >>>> That just shows you are smoking some bad weed. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Your context, being not part of the input, can't change the well- >>>>>> defined result. >>>>>> >>>>>> Should 1 + 2 become 4 on Thursdays? of it asked of a gingerbread man? >>>>> >>>>> ur overgeneralizing. just become some computation is context- >>>>> dependent doesn't mean all computation is context-dependent. >>>>> >>>>> another fallacy. >>>> >>>> Right, but nothing that actually is a computation can be context- >>>> dependent. >>> >>> ur just arguing in circles with this. >> >> No, you are just lying to yourself to try to disagree with the >> definition. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> All you are doing is saying you disagree with the definition. >>>>>> >>>>>> Go ahead, try to define an alternate version of Computation Theory >>>>>> where the result can depend on things that aren't part of the >>>>>> actual input to the machine, and see what you can show that is >>>>>> useful. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem becomes that you can't really say anything about what >>>>>> you will get, since you don't know what the "hidden" factors are. >>>>> >>>>> ??? i was very clear multiple times over what the "hidden" input >>>>> was. there's nothing random about it, context-dependent computation >>>>> is just as well-defend and deterministic as context-independent >>>>> computation >>>>> >>>> >>>> The problem is that when you look at the computation itself (that >>>> might be imbedded into a larger computation) you don't know which of >>>> the infinite contexts it might be within. >>> >>> depth is not infinite for any given step, >> >> I didn't say infinite depth, I said from infinite contexts. >> >>> >>> AND THAT'S WHERE REFLECT COMES IN: IT DUMPS THE FULL MACHINE >>> DESCRIPTION OF THE RUNNING MACHINE, THE CURRENT STATE NUMBER, AND A >>> FULL COPY OF THE TAPE ... >> >> And WHICH machine description does it dump? The problem is the machine >> description isn't unique. >> >>> >>> all the info required to compute all configurations between the >>> beginning and the current step of the computation, which can allow it >>> to compute anything that is "knowable" about where it is in the >>> computation at time of the REFLECT operation... >> >> And where did it store that information? >> >> Remember, the starting tape was unbounded in length (but finite). >> >> The machine itself is bounded in size, plus the unbounded tape. >> >>> >>> the problem is ur literally not reading what i'm writing to an >>> appreciable degree of comprehension, being too focused on isolated >>> responses that lack overall *contextual* awareness of the >>> conversation... >> >> No, you are ignoring the requirements to implement what you desire. >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> Thus, what you can say about that "computation" is very limited. >>>> >>>> You don't seem to understand that a key point of the theory is about >>>> being able to build complicate things from simpler pieces. >>>> >>>> It comes out of how logic works, we build complicated theories based >>>> on simpler theories and the axioms. If those simplere things were >>>> "context dependent" it makes it much harder for them to specifiy >>>> what they actually do in all contexts, and to then use them in all >>>> contexts. >>> >>> i'm sorry context-dependent computation aren't as simple đ«©đ«©đ«© >> >> Which is why you need to actually FULLY DEFINE them, and admit it is a >> new field. > > well it'd be great if someone fucking helped me out there, but all i get > is a bunch adversarial dismissal cause i'm stuck on a god forsaking > planet of a fucking half-braindead clowns Help has been offered, but you just reject it as it doesn't match your ideas, largely because you don't understand what you are trying to get in. When your errors are explained, just just curse back. I can't fix stupid. You aren't stuck on a planet of clowns, you are the clown that doesn't understand the world. > >> >>> >>> if the simplest theory was always correct we'd still be using >>> newtonian gravity for everything >>> >> >> You can't change a thing and it still be the same thing. >> >> I guess that truth is something you don't understand > >
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? 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