Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #22099 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2020-08-03 13:17 -0500 |
| Last post | 2020-08-07 10:54 -0600 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 677 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-03 13:17 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-04 01:57 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-03 20:07 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-04 02:45 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-03 21:00 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-04 04:05 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-03 23:29 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-04 00:11 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-04 01:26 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-04 01:01 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-04 09:52 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-04 09:30 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-04 11:23 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-04 19:35 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-04 23:30 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-04 23:10 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-05 00:59 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-05 00:44 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-05 13:04 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-05 19:57 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-05 21:12 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-05 20:27 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-05 22:32 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-05 21:37 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-05 22:34 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-04 15:47 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-04 09:54 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-04 20:44 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-04 14:58 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-05 01:40 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-04 19:46 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-05 02:06 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-04 23:25 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-05 12:49 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-05 13:12 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-05 21:32 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-05 16:18 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-05 23:48 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-05 20:09 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-06 03:13 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-05 22:31 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-06 11:48 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-06 10:47 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-06 20:04 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-06 15:09 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-06 23:03 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-06 18:08 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-07 02:51 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 10:25 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-07 17:12 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 11:48 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Kaz Kylheku <793-849-0957@kylheku.com> - 2020-08-07 16:55 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 12:34 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-07 11:13 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 12:40 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-07 12:24 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 14:46 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-07 20:06 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 23:46 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-08 01:01 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-07 11:29 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 14:58 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-07 13:24 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 16:58 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 17:11 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 17:40 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-07 15:43 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-08-08 11:04 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-08 12:10 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-07 23:41 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 18:03 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-08 00:20 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 19:11 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-08 01:50 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 20:06 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-07 20:21 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-08 03:53 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-08 13:58 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-08 23:06 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-08 00:01 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-08 00:03 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-08 14:18 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-08 13:42 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-08 03:30 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-08-07 23:12 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-08 13:27 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-08 20:17 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-08 14:36 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-08 23:17 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-08 13:38 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-08 15:05 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-08 19:16 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-09 01:32 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-08 19:49 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-09 02:25 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-08 21:41 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-08-08 23:13 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-09 17:27 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-09 12:06 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-09 21:57 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-09 16:30 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-09 14:44 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-09 17:17 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-10 00:16 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-09 20:27 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-10 03:08 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-09 21:35 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-10 15:02 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-10 10:19 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-10 16:42 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based Turing machine) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-10 11:49 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based Turing machine) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-11 00:35 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-10 18:49 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-10 18:52 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-10 18:58 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-11 03:49 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-11 15:31 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-11 22:16 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-11 16:32 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-11 14:53 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-11 17:50 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-12 00:53 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-11 20:04 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-08-11 21:25 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-11 22:56 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-12 13:40 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 09:49 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Kaz Kylheku <793-849-0957@kylheku.com> - 2020-08-12 16:47 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 12:26 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Kaz Kylheku <793-849-0957@kylheku.com> - 2020-08-12 18:25 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 14:45 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (x86 based UTM) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 15:26 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (x86 based UTM) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 17:23 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-12 21:36 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 15:55 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-12 23:00 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 17:40 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-13 01:21 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 19:54 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-12 18:36 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 21:01 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-13 04:25 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 22:39 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-13 02:56 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 10:48 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-13 10:51 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 12:12 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-13 12:03 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 14:17 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-13 22:02 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-13 11:50 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 10:40 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-13 20:38 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 14:55 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-13 23:17 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-14 09:55 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-14 22:23 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Decidability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-14 15:56 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Decidability) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-08-14 14:28 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Decidability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-14 17:08 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Decidability) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-08-14 17:58 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Decidability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-14 20:14 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Decidability) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-08-14 21:03 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Decidability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-14 23:31 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Decidability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-15 00:17 -0500
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Decidability) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2020-08-14 23:35 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Decidability) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-14 22:56 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Decidability) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-14 18:34 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 16:47 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-13 15:02 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 17:18 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-14 00:13 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-14 10:06 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-14 22:33 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-14 00:01 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 22:41 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-14 13:50 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-13 03:00 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35? (Gödel) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 10:56 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-11 20:48 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-11 22:37 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-11 22:48 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 00:28 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-11 23:14 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 08:23 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-12 01:35 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 09:28 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-12 08:40 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 09:55 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-12 09:00 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 10:24 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-12 09:46 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 11:38 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-12 16:04 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 10:30 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-12 22:51 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 17:08 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-13 00:39 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 19:12 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-13 04:11 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-12 22:26 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 00:17 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-13 11:16 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 10:44 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-13 11:34 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-13 12:46 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 14:09 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-13 20:46 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 15:29 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-13 23:41 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 21:00 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-14 11:05 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 14:50 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-13 22:47 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 16:54 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-13 23:44 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 21:11 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-14 11:29 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-08-14 12:34 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-14 13:59 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-08-14 16:41 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V38 (x86 is Turing Complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-14 12:10 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V38 (x86 is Turing Complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-15 00:48 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V38 (x86 is Turing Complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-14 19:34 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V38 (x86 is Turing Complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-15 02:13 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V38 (x86 is Turing Complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-14 23:29 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V38 (x86 is Turing Complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-15 17:49 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V38 (x86 is Turing Complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-15 14:31 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V38 (x86 is Turing Complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-15 22:34 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V38 (x86 is Turing Complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-15 16:49 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V38 (x86 is Turing Complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-15 23:40 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-14 21:27 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-08-15 12:13 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (X86 is Turing Complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-15 09:13 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-15 17:25 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-15 12:07 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-15 20:31 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-08-15 13:38 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-15 14:52 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-08-15 21:23 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-15 22:05 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-08-16 00:33 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-16 02:07 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-08-15 16:04 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V39 (x86 is Turing Complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-14 13:28 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-13 15:14 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 18:23 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-08-13 16:26 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based UTM) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 18:44 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-14 17:54 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-15 01:05 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-15 00:29 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-15 20:22 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-15 16:06 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-15 22:59 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-15 17:45 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-16 02:36 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-15 21:07 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-16 13:23 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-16 10:46 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-16 17:41 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-16 12:55 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-16 20:13 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-16 14:33 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-16 20:52 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V40 (x86 is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-16 15:29 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V40 (x86 is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-16 22:23 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-16 16:44 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-17 00:07 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-16 18:17 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-17 00:44 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-17 10:20 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-17 09:35 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-17 12:16 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-17 10:53 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-17 13:21 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-17 12:19 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-17 16:41 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] Kaz Kylheku <793-849-0957@kylheku.com> - 2020-08-17 18:12 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-17 13:43 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-17 16:58 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-21 00:06 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-23 16:29 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-23 14:49 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-23 17:40 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-23 17:08 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-23 20:19 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-23 20:47 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-23 23:34 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-23 22:47 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-24 01:52 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-24 00:30 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-24 10:55 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-24 11:40 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-24 13:26 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-24 13:23 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-24 16:02 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-24 20:30 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-25 09:34 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-25 08:56 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-25 10:34 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-25 09:59 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-25 12:00 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-25 12:39 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-25 14:37 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-17 20:17 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-16 16:01 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-16 18:13 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V46 (x86 is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-20 19:58 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-21 00:17 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-21 11:20 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V46 (x86 Turing is complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-21 09:31 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V46 (x86 Turing is complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-21 12:17 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V46 (x86 Turing is complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-21 13:46 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V46 (x86 Turing is complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-21 14:14 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V46 (x86 Turing is complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-21 16:27 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V46 (x86 Turing is complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-22 01:10 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-21 19:31 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-22 03:06 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-21 21:19 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-21 19:47 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-21 22:00 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-21 20:12 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-21 22:22 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-21 22:19 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-22 11:28 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-22 10:31 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-22 22:24 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-22 17:26 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-22 23:36 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-22 18:32 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-23 02:04 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-22 22:42 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-23 00:03 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-23 13:00 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-23 08:51 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-23 16:42 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-23 11:33 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-23 22:14 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-23 16:47 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-24 01:38 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-23 21:27 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-23 21:22 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-23 23:54 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-24 00:05 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-24 18:18 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-25 01:59 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-24 20:21 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-24 21:29 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-25 03:54 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-25 01:38 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-25 03:37 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-25 09:55 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 08:34 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-25 11:06 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 10:28 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-25 12:51 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-25 12:30 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-25 13:50 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 12:50 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-25 15:14 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 12:29 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-25 14:41 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 12:54 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-25 15:27 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 13:38 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-25 16:36 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-25 23:35 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-25 18:01 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-25 17:07 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-25 20:07 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-26 16:32 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 15:40 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-26 18:12 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 17:31 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-26 19:52 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-26 03:37 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-25 22:12 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-26 12:58 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-26 09:38 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-26 17:36 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-26 12:26 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-26 20:43 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-26 15:12 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-26 22:40 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Alan Smaill <smaill@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> - 2020-08-26 18:28 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-26 12:36 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-26 19:41 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-26 14:03 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-26 21:17 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-26 15:42 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-26 22:37 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-26 16:47 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 15:41 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-26 18:15 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-26 17:32 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-26 19:59 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (Chris Rock Speaks for God) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-26 20:18 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-28 10:12 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-28 10:20 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-28 10:25 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-28 09:39 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-28 11:25 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-28 10:42 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-28 11:59 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-28 11:45 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-28 17:52 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-28 12:08 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-28 11:19 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-28 12:50 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-28 22:34 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-08-29 03:06 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-29 08:27 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-29 07:44 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-29 09:26 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-29 08:58 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-29 10:12 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-30 07:38 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V51 (Turing Equivalent) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-30 11:11 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-29 10:29 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-29 17:47 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-29 12:32 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-29 14:01 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-29 20:03 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-29 14:48 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-29 21:35 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-29 16:00 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-29 23:32 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-29 18:20 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-30 02:24 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-29 21:17 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-08-29 23:15 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-08-29 22:57 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-29 22:13 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-08-29 23:27 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 03:27 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-29 16:26 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-29 23:53 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-29 18:33 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-30 02:35 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-29 21:36 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Can "C" be made Turing complete?) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-30 15:38 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V51 (Making "C" Turing equivalent) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-30 11:42 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V51 (Making "C" Turing equivalent) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-30 20:05 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V51 (Making "C" Turing equivalent) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-30 14:17 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-30 14:37 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 13:10 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-30 15:19 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-08-30 14:22 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-30 16:58 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-31 02:48 +0100
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2020-08-31 02:08 +0000
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-08-31 09:49 +0100
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2020-08-31 13:59 +0000
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-08-31 16:13 +0100
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2020-08-31 15:24 +0000
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-31 19:26 +0100
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2020-08-31 21:37 +0000
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-31 23:56 +0100
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2020-08-31 23:10 +0000
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-01 02:28 +0100
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2020-09-01 02:02 +0000
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-01 03:16 +0100
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2020-09-01 02:29 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-31 08:58 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-01 00:04 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-02 09:55 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-02 12:03 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-09-03 06:12 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-03 09:46 -0500
Re: Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) - 2020-09-03 14:23 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2020-09-03 21:28 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-03 16:51 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2020-09-03 23:20 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-03 17:31 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2020-09-04 01:56 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-03 20:15 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-03 20:29 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2020-09-04 02:47 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-03 21:08 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-04 03:52 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-03 22:15 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-03 22:41 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-04 05:14 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-03 23:37 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-03 15:28 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-03 16:16 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-03 16:13 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-03 12:05 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-04 02:50 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-03 22:02 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-04 05:05 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-03 23:42 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-04 11:48 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-04 08:41 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-04 17:04 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-04 11:36 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-04 22:29 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-09-04 14:42 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-04 22:53 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-04 17:51 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-05 02:25 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-04 20:34 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-05 23:58 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-09-05 17:59 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-04 20:58 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-09-04 22:50 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 00:21 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-09-05 09:49 -0400
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 09:34 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-09-05 11:03 -0400
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 11:20 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-09-05 10:40 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 12:12 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-09-05 11:42 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 13:17 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-09-05 12:33 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 14:16 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-09-05 16:19 -0400
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 15:31 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-09-05 17:19 -0400
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2020-09-05 23:01 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-09-05 17:52 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-09-05 21:12 -0400
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-06 02:32 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-06 13:08 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 21:49 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2020-09-06 04:35 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 22:50 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 22:58 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-09-06 08:47 -0400
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-06 11:42 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-09-06 11:43 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-06 13:04 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-09-06 16:07 -0400
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-06 15:14 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-06 21:42 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-06 16:16 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-09-06 14:18 -0400
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-06 13:32 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-09-06 12:59 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-06 14:18 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-09-06 13:37 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-06 14:44 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-09-06 14:02 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-06 15:22 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-09-06 17:02 -0400
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-06 16:22 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-09-06 18:19 -0400
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-06 17:39 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-09-06 20:23 -0400
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-06 20:23 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-09-06 21:51 -0400
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-06 21:10 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-07 00:59 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-06 21:02 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-09-06 22:51 -0400
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-06 22:10 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-09-05 15:29 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-09-05 15:52 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-06 00:05 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-09-05 15:28 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-05 23:09 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 00:40 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-06 02:25 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-09-04 22:45 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 00:06 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-09-05 00:03 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 09:20 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-09-05 09:34 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 11:32 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-09-05 10:48 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-05 12:21 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-05 23:18 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-04 12:47 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-04 08:51 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-04 17:11 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-04 11:39 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2020-09-03 22:44 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2020-09-04 11:09 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (HP refutation Sufficiency Specs) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-04 13:34 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-08-31 00:23 +0100
Transforming "C" into a Turing equivalent language 001 [Providing unlimited memory access to C] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-30 19:17 -0500
Re: Transforming "C" into a Turing equivalent language 001 [Providing unlimited memory access to C] Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-08-31 09:59 +0100
Re: Transforming "C" into a Turing equivalent language 001 [Providing unlimited memory access to C] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-31 08:47 -0500
Re: Transforming "C" into a Turing equivalent language 001 [Providing unlimited memory access to C] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-02 09:58 -0500
Re: Transforming "C" into a Turing equivalent language 001 [Providing unlimited memory access to C] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-09-03 03:37 +0100
Re: Transforming "C" into a Turing equivalent language 001 [Providing unlimited memory access to C] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-02 21:50 -0500
Re: Transforming "C" into a Turing equivalent language 001 [Providing unlimited memory access to C] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-02 22:04 -0500
Re: Transforming "C" into a Turing equivalent language 007 [Mapping x86 to Turing Equivalent] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-09-02 22:30 -0500
Re: Simply defining G"odel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2020-08-31 02:16 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V52 (Machine equivalence) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2020-08-30 20:43 -0400
Transforming "C" into a Turing equivalent language 001 [Providing unlimited memory access to C] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-30 20:21 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-30 07:27 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V51 (Making "C" Turing equivalent) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-30 10:21 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-29 01:24 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V50 (Making "C" Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-25 14:51 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-23 10:18 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-23 17:51 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-23 12:29 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-23 22:12 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V47 (x86 really is Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-23 16:23 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-22 16:19 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V46 (Honest dialogue?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-22 18:46 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V46 (Honest dialogue?) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-22 17:55 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V46 (Honest dialogue?) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-22 20:14 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) Kaz Kylheku <793-849-0957@kylheku.com> - 2020-08-13 07:45 +0000
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V37 (Turing complete) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-13 10:32 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-09 22:32 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-09 22:26 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based Turing Machines) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-09 23:40 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based Turing Machines) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-09 23:28 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based Turing Machines) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-10 00:43 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based Turing Machines) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-10 00:19 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based Turing Machines) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-10 09:08 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based Turing Machines) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-10 08:34 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based Turing Machines) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-10 10:27 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based Turing Machines) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-10 09:31 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based Turing Machines) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-10 10:56 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based Turing Machines) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-10 10:31 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based Turing Machines) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-10 12:03 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based Turing Machines) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-10 11:06 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based Turing Machines) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-10 12:13 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-10 12:27 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-09 18:37 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-09 21:33 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-09 20:41 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-09 22:46 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-09 21:36 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-09 23:44 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-09 22:22 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-10 00:41 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-09 22:56 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-10 01:06 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-09 23:20 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-10 09:25 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-10 10:55 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-10 13:14 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-10 18:39 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Wasell <usenet2020.1@wasell.eu> - 2020-08-10 16:01 +0200
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based Turing Machine) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-10 09:58 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-09 21:01 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-10 12:24 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based Turing Machine) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-10 09:35 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based Turing Machine) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-08-10 16:12 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V36 (x86 based Turing Machine) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-10 10:26 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2020-08-08 11:54 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-08 12:27 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-06 18:25 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-06 18:28 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2020-08-06 16:45 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-06 18:59 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-07 02:26 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-06 20:46 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-07 03:05 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 10:43 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-07 11:23 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-07 23:41 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 18:28 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-08 01:20 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 19:58 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-08 03:09 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-08 00:14 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-08 17:52 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-08 14:05 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-08 21:23 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-07 19:16 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-07 00:53 -0600
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 10:01 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-07 16:38 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 10:48 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-07 11:10 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 14:41 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2020-08-07 13:11 -0700
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2020-08-07 16:52 -0500
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2020-08-08 00:02 +0100
Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V35 (Semantically Incorrect Defined) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2020-08-07 10:54 -0600
Page 15 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 34 Next page →
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-17 16:58 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] |
| Message-ID | <bsydnWKqNY0EYKfCnZ2dnUU7-efNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #22459 |
On 8/17/2020 1:12 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2020-08-17, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: >> On 8/17/2020 1:44 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2020-08-16 17:17, olcott wrote: >>> >>>> That the relative addressing of the x86 language specifies an abstract >>>> model of computation with access to unlimited memory really is >>>> blatantly obvious. >>> >>> The problem is the you have a poor track record with respect to things >>> you claim are 'blatantly obvious'. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> It really seems that some people in these forums have an established >> track record of arguing against me when they know that I am right. > > The Intel x86 instruction set defines a fixed address space. > > That limitation is not simply an instance of an infinite abstraction; > it is the abstraction. > > No addressing mode provides unlimited memory. > > I.e. you're dead wrong here about something that some elementary school > kids know about computers. The abstract model of computation specified by the x86 language already has access to unlimited memory when we assume the implementation detail that the underlying memory architecture of this abstract model is organized as an unlimited sequence of adjacent 4GB blocks. (1) signed 32-bit relative jumps // Jumps to the first address of the next 4GB block FFFFFFF0: E90B000000 ; signed 32-bit relative jumps (2) signed 32-bit relative offsets // Moves a 32-bit integer from the first address of the next 4GB block xxxxxxxx: BBFFFFFFFF mov ebx, 0xffffffff xxxxxxxx: 8B4301 mov eax, dword ptr [ebx+0x1] -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-21 00:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] |
| Message-ID | <N6OdnXfGIrDOy6LCnZ2dnUU7-QGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #22459 |
On 8/17/2020 1:12 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2020-08-17, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: >> On 8/17/2020 1:44 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2020-08-16 17:17, olcott wrote: >>> >>>> That the relative addressing of the x86 language specifies an abstract >>>> model of computation with access to unlimited memory really is >>>> blatantly obvious. >>> >>> The problem is the you have a poor track record with respect to things >>> you claim are 'blatantly obvious'. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> It really seems that some people in these forums have an established >> track record of arguing against me when they know that I am right. > > The Intel x86 instruction set defines a fixed address space. > > That limitation is not simply an instance of an infinite abstraction; > it is the abstraction. > > No addressing mode provides unlimited memory. > > I.e. you're dead wrong here about something that some elementary school > kids know about computers. So you don't have the gumption to admit when you have been proved wrong? -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-23 16:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE |
| Message-ID | <KOSdnfMSs7gCQt_CnZ2dnUU7-dnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #22459 |
On 8/17/2020 1:12 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2020-08-17, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: >> On 8/17/2020 1:44 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2020-08-16 17:17, olcott wrote: >>> >>>> That the relative addressing of the x86 language specifies an abstract >>>> model of computation with access to unlimited memory really is >>>> blatantly obvious. >>> >>> The problem is the you have a poor track record with respect to things >>> you claim are 'blatantly obvious'. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> It really seems that some people in these forums have an established >> track record of arguing against me when they know that I am right. > > The Intel x86 instruction set defines a fixed address space. > > That limitation is not simply an instance of an infinite abstraction; > it is the abstraction. > > No addressing mode provides unlimited memory. > > I.e. you're dead wrong here about something that some elementary school > kids know about computers. > You made the rookie mistake of conflating the abstract model of computation defined by the x86 language with its typical Intel architecture physical implementation. Physical implementation details are never a part of an abstract model. -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-23 14:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE |
| Message-ID | <87a6yl58yu.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #22547 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> On 8/17/2020 1:12 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2020-08-17, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>> On 8/17/2020 1:44 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2020-08-16 17:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That the relative addressing of the x86 language specifies an abstract
>>>>> model of computation with access to unlimited memory really is
>>>>> blatantly obvious.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is the you have a poor track record with respect to things
>>>> you claim are 'blatantly obvious'.
>>>
>>> It really seems that some people in these forums have an established
>>> track record of arguing against me when they know that I am right.
>>
>> The Intel x86 instruction set defines a fixed address space.
>>
>> That limitation is not simply an instance of an infinite abstraction;
>> it is the abstraction.
>>
>> No addressing mode provides unlimited memory.
>>
>> I.e. you're dead wrong here about something that some elementary school
>> kids know about computers.
>>
> You made the rookie mistake of conflating the abstract model of
> computation defined by the x86 language with its typical Intel
> architecture physical implementation.
>
> Physical implementation details are never a part of an abstract model.
You keep talking about the "x86 language" as something distinct from
the x86 physical architecture. Where is this "x86 language" defined?
Is there a published document that specifies it, independently of
the hardware implementation? Is there some specific document that
you're relying on for your assertions? (This is a serious question.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-23 17:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE |
| Message-ID | <qOqdnVdSr77Jbd_CnZ2dnUU7-IPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #22549 |
On 8/23/2020 4:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> On 8/17/2020 1:12 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2020-08-17, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote: >>>> On 8/17/2020 1:44 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2020-08-16 17:17, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> That the relative addressing of the x86 language specifies an abstract >>>>>> model of computation with access to unlimited memory really is >>>>>> blatantly obvious. >>>>> >>>>> The problem is the you have a poor track record with respect to things >>>>> you claim are 'blatantly obvious'. >>>> >>>> It really seems that some people in these forums have an established >>>> track record of arguing against me when they know that I am right. >>> >>> The Intel x86 instruction set defines a fixed address space. >>> >>> That limitation is not simply an instance of an infinite abstraction; >>> it is the abstraction. >>> >>> No addressing mode provides unlimited memory. >>> >>> I.e. you're dead wrong here about something that some elementary school >>> kids know about computers. >>> >> You made the rookie mistake of conflating the abstract model of >> computation defined by the x86 language with its typical Intel >> architecture physical implementation. >> >> Physical implementation details are never a part of an abstract model. > > You keep talking about the "x86 language" as something distinct from > the x86 physical architecture. Where is this "x86 language" defined? > Is there a published document that specifies it, independently of > the hardware implementation? Is there some specific document that > you're relying on for your assertions? (This is a serious question.) > That is a very good question. The documentation that directly pertains how each individual instruction is encoded as a sequence of bytes and the primary change of state that executing the instruction is defined to cause specifies the abstract model of computation that the x86 language defines. Jumping to a machine address is defined to have a primary change of state of changing the instruction pointer to the target address. https://c9x.me/x86/html/file_module_x86_id_147.html If the jump happens to be in the middle of the operating system or somewhere outside of physical memory these are implemtation details that are not defined by the abstract model of the x86 language itself. -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-23 17:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE |
| Message-ID | <875z986h2u.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #22550 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> On 8/23/2020 4:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>> On 8/17/2020 1:12 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2020-08-17, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 8/17/2020 1:44 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2020-08-16 17:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> That the relative addressing of the x86 language specifies an abstract
>>>>>>> model of computation with access to unlimited memory really is
>>>>>>> blatantly obvious.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem is the you have a poor track record with respect to things
>>>>>> you claim are 'blatantly obvious'.
>>>>>
>>>>> It really seems that some people in these forums have an established
>>>>> track record of arguing against me when they know that I am right.
>>>>
>>>> The Intel x86 instruction set defines a fixed address space.
>>>>
>>>> That limitation is not simply an instance of an infinite abstraction;
>>>> it is the abstraction.
>>>>
>>>> No addressing mode provides unlimited memory.
>>>>
>>>> I.e. you're dead wrong here about something that some elementary school
>>>> kids know about computers.
>>>>
>>> You made the rookie mistake of conflating the abstract model of
>>> computation defined by the x86 language with its typical Intel
>>> architecture physical implementation.
>>>
>>> Physical implementation details are never a part of an abstract model.
>>
>> You keep talking about the "x86 language" as something distinct from
>> the x86 physical architecture. Where is this "x86 language" defined?
>> Is there a published document that specifies it, independently of
>> the hardware implementation? Is there some specific document that
>> you're relying on for your assertions? (This is a serious question.)
>
> That is a very good question.
>
> The documentation that directly pertains how each individual
> instruction is encoded as a sequence of bytes and the primary change
> of state that executing the instruction is defined to cause specifies
> the abstract model of computation that the x86 language defines.
>
> Jumping to a machine address is defined to have a primary change of
> state of changing the instruction pointer to the target address.
> https://c9x.me/x86/html/file_module_x86_id_147.html
>
> If the jump happens to be in the middle of the operating system or
> somewhere outside of physical memory these are implemtation details
> that are not defined by the abstract model of the x86 language itself.
c9x.me appears to be a personal web site owned by one person.
(I think I've found that person's name, but it's not particularly
easy to find so I won't mention it here.)
I would have thought that a definitive document defining the "x86
language" would have been published by Intel, or perhaps AMD, IEEE,
or some other organization. I have no particular reason to doubt
the accuracy of the web page you linked to, but it doesn't appear
to be definitive.
Do you have a link to a *definitive* description of x86 (either the
architecture or what you call the "x86 language")? I'm looking for
something that I or someone else can look at to confirm or refute
your claims about infinite addressibility.
I rarely deal with assembly or machine language, and x86 isn't
the architecture I'm most familiar with, but my understanding
(supplemented by a quick Google search just now) is that the
architecture includes an "instruction pointer" or "IP", a register
that old the memory address of the next instruction that will be
generated. Depending on the mode, the IP can be 16 bits ("ip"),
32 bits ("eip"), or 64 bits ("rip"). The IP as I understand it, is
part of the model of computation defined by the x86 architecture.
A jump instruction, whether it's absolute or relative, can only
specify one of 2**N possible targets, where N is no greater than 64.
A program running on a x86 in 32-bit mode could in principle execute
a trillion jump instructions, but those instructions cannot possibly
refer to more than 2**32 distinct target addresses.
It's entirely possible that I'm missing something.
What I'm looking for is (a) definitive documentation of the "x86
language" and (b) an explanation for why the fixed size of the
instruction pointer is not part of the abstract model of computation.
Now of course someone could define such an abstract model in which
jumps are *not* defined in terms of a fixed-width instruction
pointer, and that could provide a basis for accessing unbounded
storage. (Then again, defining a paper tape interface could do
the same thing more straightforwardly.)
But as far as I can tell, such an abstract model would necessarily
be inconsistent with the x86 architecture. My hunch is that your
assertion that the fixed width of the IP is not part of the abstract
model is arbitrary and not supported by any definitive document,
but I'm prepared to be proven wrong.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-23 20:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE |
| Message-ID | <V96dnfpsdbAOiN7CnZ2dnUU7-XPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #22551 |
On 8/23/2020 7:08 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>> On 8/23/2020 4:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>> On 8/17/2020 1:12 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2020-08-17, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/17/2020 1:44 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2020-08-16 17:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> That the relative addressing of the x86 language specifies an abstract
>>>>>>>> model of computation with access to unlimited memory really is
>>>>>>>> blatantly obvious.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The problem is the you have a poor track record with respect to things
>>>>>>> you claim are 'blatantly obvious'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It really seems that some people in these forums have an established
>>>>>> track record of arguing against me when they know that I am right.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Intel x86 instruction set defines a fixed address space.
>>>>>
>>>>> That limitation is not simply an instance of an infinite abstraction;
>>>>> it is the abstraction.
>>>>>
>>>>> No addressing mode provides unlimited memory.
>>>>>
>>>>> I.e. you're dead wrong here about something that some elementary school
>>>>> kids know about computers.
>>>>>
>>>> You made the rookie mistake of conflating the abstract model of
>>>> computation defined by the x86 language with its typical Intel
>>>> architecture physical implementation.
>>>>
>>>> Physical implementation details are never a part of an abstract model.
>>>
>>> You keep talking about the "x86 language" as something distinct from
>>> the x86 physical architecture. Where is this "x86 language" defined?
>>> Is there a published document that specifies it, independently of
>>> the hardware implementation? Is there some specific document that
>>> you're relying on for your assertions? (This is a serious question.)
>>
>> That is a very good question.
>>
>> The documentation that directly pertains how each individual
>> instruction is encoded as a sequence of bytes and the primary change
>> of state that executing the instruction is defined to cause specifies
>> the abstract model of computation that the x86 language defines.
>>
>> Jumping to a machine address is defined to have a primary change of
>> state of changing the instruction pointer to the target address.
>> https://c9x.me/x86/html/file_module_x86_id_147.html
>>
>> If the jump happens to be in the middle of the operating system or
>> somewhere outside of physical memory these are implemtation details
>> that are not defined by the abstract model of the x86 language itself.
>
> c9x.me appears to be a personal web site owned by one person.
> (I think I've found that person's name, but it's not particularly
> easy to find so I won't mention it here.)
>
> I would have thought that a definitive document defining the "x86
> language" would have been published by Intel, or perhaps AMD, IEEE,
> or some other organization. I have no particular reason to doubt
> the accuracy of the web page you linked to, but it doesn't appear
> to be definitive.
>
> Do you have a link to a *definitive* description of x86 (either the
> architecture or what you call the "x86 language")? I'm looking for
> something that I or someone else can look at to confirm or refute
> your claims about infinite addressibility.
>
It is like the definitive guide of arithmetic they all say exactly the
same thing. The crucial thing is where I drew the line between the
language and its implementation.
The x86 language is defined by its instructions:
(a) Exactly how each instruction is encoded as a sequence of bytes.
(b) The primary change to the machine state caused by executing the
instruction. (AKA the most basic semantics of the instruction).
> I rarely deal with assembly or machine language, and x86 isn't
> the architecture I'm most familiar with, but my understanding
> (supplemented by a quick Google search just now) is that the
> architecture includes an "instruction pointer" or "IP", a register
> that old the memory address of the next instruction that will be
> generated. Depending on the mode, the IP can be 16 bits ("ip"),
> 32 bits ("eip"), or 64 bits ("rip"). The IP as I understand it, is
> part of the model of computation defined by the x86 architecture.
> A jump instruction, whether it's absolute or relative, can only
> specify one of 2**N possible targets, where N is no greater than 64.
>
> A program running on a x86 in 32-bit mode could in principle execute
> a trillion jump instructions, but those instructions cannot possibly
> refer to more than 2**32 distinct target addresses.
>
Sure they can because each one of them can jump 0x7fffffff bytes
forward. This is documented on the link that I provided.
What happens when they exceed 0xffffffff is an implementation detail.
> It's entirely possible that I'm missing something.
>
> What I'm looking for is (a) definitive documentation of the "x86
> language" and (b) an explanation for why the fixed size of the
> instruction pointer is not part of the abstract model of computation.
>
> Now of course someone could define such an abstract model in which
> jumps are *not* defined in terms of a fixed-width instruction
> pointer, and that could provide a basis for accessing unbounded
> storage. (Then again, defining a paper tape interface could do
> the same thing more straightforwardly.)
>
> But as far as I can tell, such an abstract model would necessarily
> be inconsistent with the x86 architecture. My hunch is that your
> assertion that the fixed width of the IP is not part of the abstract
> model is arbitrary and not supported by any definitive document,
> but I'm prepared to be proven wrong.
>
Study the link that I provided.
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-23 20:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE |
| Message-ID | <871rjw66xh.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #22554 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> On 8/23/2020 7:08 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>> On 8/23/2020 4:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>> On 8/17/2020 1:12 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2020-08-17, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 8/17/2020 1:44 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2020-08-16 17:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> That the relative addressing of the x86 language specifies an abstract
>>>>>>>>> model of computation with access to unlimited memory really is
>>>>>>>>> blatantly obvious.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem is the you have a poor track record with respect to things
>>>>>>>> you claim are 'blatantly obvious'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It really seems that some people in these forums have an established
>>>>>>> track record of arguing against me when they know that I am right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Intel x86 instruction set defines a fixed address space.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That limitation is not simply an instance of an infinite abstraction;
>>>>>> it is the abstraction.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No addressing mode provides unlimited memory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I.e. you're dead wrong here about something that some elementary school
>>>>>> kids know about computers.
>>>>>>
>>>>> You made the rookie mistake of conflating the abstract model of
>>>>> computation defined by the x86 language with its typical Intel
>>>>> architecture physical implementation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Physical implementation details are never a part of an abstract model.
>>>>
>>>> You keep talking about the "x86 language" as something distinct from
>>>> the x86 physical architecture. Where is this "x86 language" defined?
>>>> Is there a published document that specifies it, independently of
>>>> the hardware implementation? Is there some specific document that
>>>> you're relying on for your assertions? (This is a serious question.)
>>>
>>> That is a very good question.
>>>
>>> The documentation that directly pertains how each individual
>>> instruction is encoded as a sequence of bytes and the primary change
>>> of state that executing the instruction is defined to cause specifies
>>> the abstract model of computation that the x86 language defines.
>>>
>>> Jumping to a machine address is defined to have a primary change of
>>> state of changing the instruction pointer to the target address.
>>> https://c9x.me/x86/html/file_module_x86_id_147.html
>>>
>>> If the jump happens to be in the middle of the operating system or
>>> somewhere outside of physical memory these are implemtation details
>>> that are not defined by the abstract model of the x86 language itself.
>>
>> c9x.me appears to be a personal web site owned by one person.
>> (I think I've found that person's name, but it's not particularly
>> easy to find so I won't mention it here.)
>>
>> I would have thought that a definitive document defining the "x86
>> language" would have been published by Intel, or perhaps AMD, IEEE,
>> or some other organization. I have no particular reason to doubt
>> the accuracy of the web page you linked to, but it doesn't appear
>> to be definitive.
>>
>> Do you have a link to a *definitive* description of x86 (either the
>> architecture or what you call the "x86 language")? I'm looking for
>> something that I or someone else can look at to confirm or refute
>> your claims about infinite addressibility.
>
> It is like the definitive guide of arithmetic they all say exactly the
> same thing. The crucial thing is where I drew the line between the
> language and its implementation.
Right, the crucial thing is where *you* draw the line.
I haven't seen any x86 documentation referring to it as a "language".
There is a language (machine code) that runs on an x86 system, but it's
the system architecture itself that defines the behavior.
Surely you can provide a more definitive source of information than some
guy's web site. (No disrespect to the author of that site.)
Why is the width of the EIP register an implementation detail?
Explain how you decided to draw that line.
> The x86 language is defined by its instructions:
> (a) Exactly how each instruction is encoded as a sequence of bytes.
> (b) The primary change to the machine state caused by executing the
> instruction. (AKA the most basic semantics of the instruction).
Only by its instructions? Not by, say, the sizes of its registers?
>> I rarely deal with assembly or machine language, and x86 isn't
>> the architecture I'm most familiar with, but my understanding
>> (supplemented by a quick Google search just now) is that the
>> architecture includes an "instruction pointer" or "IP", a register
>> that old the memory address of the next instruction that will be
>> generated. Depending on the mode, the IP can be 16 bits ("ip"),
>> 32 bits ("eip"), or 64 bits ("rip"). The IP as I understand it, is
>> part of the model of computation defined by the x86 architecture.
>> A jump instruction, whether it's absolute or relative, can only
>> specify one of 2**N possible targets, where N is no greater than 64.
>>
>> A program running on a x86 in 32-bit mode could in principle execute
>> a trillion jump instructions, but those instructions cannot possibly
>> refer to more than 2**32 distinct target addresses.
>
> Sure they can because each one of them can jump 0x7fffffff bytes
> forward. This is documented on the link that I provided.
Circular reasoning. You say it can do it because it can do it.
> What happens when they exceed 0xffffffff is an implementation detail.
Hardly.
>> It's entirely possible that I'm missing something.
>>
>> What I'm looking for is (a) definitive documentation of the "x86
>> language" and (b) an explanation for why the fixed size of the
>> instruction pointer is not part of the abstract model of computation.
>>
>> Now of course someone could define such an abstract model in which
>> jumps are *not* defined in terms of a fixed-width instruction
>> pointer, and that could provide a basis for accessing unbounded
>> storage. (Then again, defining a paper tape interface could do
>> the same thing more straightforwardly.)
>>
>> But as far as I can tell, such an abstract model would necessarily
>> be inconsistent with the x86 architecture. My hunch is that your
>> assertion that the fixed width of the IP is not part of the abstract
>> model is arbitrary and not supported by any definitive document,
>> but I'm prepared to be proven wrong.
>
> Study the link that I provided.
From that link (and I'd still like to see something *definitive*):
A relative offset (rel8, rel16, or rel32) is generally specified
as a label in assembly code, but at the machine code level, it
is encoded as a signed 8-, 16-, or 32-bit immediate value. This
value is added to the value in the EIP register. (Here, the
EIP register contains the address of the instruction following
the JMP instruction). When using relative offsets, the opcode
(for short vs. near jumps) and the operand-size attribute (for
near relative jumps) determines the size of the target operand
(8, 16, or 32 bits).
The 8-, 16-, or 32-bit value is added to the value in the EIP register.
Do you claim that the EIP register can be infinitely wide? Do you claim
that it can old an address whose value exceeds 2**64?
(I know you've already acknowledged that the relative offset can't
exceed 32 bits, so don't bother arguing about that.)
Again, I can imagine that there might be some abstract x86-based
architecture *with significant changes* that could support an
arbitrarily large address range. But it wouldn't be "the x86 language"
as you call it.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-23 23:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE |
| Message-ID | <f7CdnXLIFPfu3t7CnZ2dnUU7-d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #22556 |
On 8/23/2020 10:47 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>> On 8/23/2020 7:08 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>> On 8/23/2020 4:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 8/17/2020 1:12 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2020-08-17, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 8/17/2020 1:44 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2020-08-16 17:17, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> That the relative addressing of the x86 language specifies an abstract
>>>>>>>>>> model of computation with access to unlimited memory really is
>>>>>>>>>> blatantly obvious.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The problem is the you have a poor track record with respect to things
>>>>>>>>> you claim are 'blatantly obvious'.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It really seems that some people in these forums have an established
>>>>>>>> track record of arguing against me when they know that I am right.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Intel x86 instruction set defines a fixed address space.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That limitation is not simply an instance of an infinite abstraction;
>>>>>>> it is the abstraction.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No addressing mode provides unlimited memory.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I.e. you're dead wrong here about something that some elementary school
>>>>>>> kids know about computers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You made the rookie mistake of conflating the abstract model of
>>>>>> computation defined by the x86 language with its typical Intel
>>>>>> architecture physical implementation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Physical implementation details are never a part of an abstract model.
>>>>>
>>>>> You keep talking about the "x86 language" as something distinct from
>>>>> the x86 physical architecture. Where is this "x86 language" defined?
>>>>> Is there a published document that specifies it, independently of
>>>>> the hardware implementation? Is there some specific document that
>>>>> you're relying on for your assertions? (This is a serious question.)
>>>>
>>>> That is a very good question.
>>>>
>>>> The documentation that directly pertains how each individual
>>>> instruction is encoded as a sequence of bytes and the primary change
>>>> of state that executing the instruction is defined to cause specifies
>>>> the abstract model of computation that the x86 language defines.
>>>>
>>>> Jumping to a machine address is defined to have a primary change of
>>>> state of changing the instruction pointer to the target address.
>>>> https://c9x.me/x86/html/file_module_x86_id_147.html
>>>>
>>>> If the jump happens to be in the middle of the operating system or
>>>> somewhere outside of physical memory these are implemtation details
>>>> that are not defined by the abstract model of the x86 language itself.
>>>
>>> c9x.me appears to be a personal web site owned by one person.
>>> (I think I've found that person's name, but it's not particularly
>>> easy to find so I won't mention it here.)
>>>
>>> I would have thought that a definitive document defining the "x86
>>> language" would have been published by Intel, or perhaps AMD, IEEE,
>>> or some other organization. I have no particular reason to doubt
>>> the accuracy of the web page you linked to, but it doesn't appear
>>> to be definitive.
>>>
>>> Do you have a link to a *definitive* description of x86 (either the
>>> architecture or what you call the "x86 language")? I'm looking for
>>> something that I or someone else can look at to confirm or refute
>>> your claims about infinite addressibility.
>>
>> It is like the definitive guide of arithmetic they all say exactly the
>> same thing. The crucial thing is where I drew the line between the
>> language and its implementation.
>
> Right, the crucial thing is where *you* draw the line.
>
> I haven't seen any x86 documentation referring to it as a "language".
> There is a language (machine code) that runs on an x86 system, but it's
> the system architecture itself that defines the behavior.
>
> Surely you can provide a more definitive source of information than some
> guy's web site. (No disrespect to the author of that site.)
>
I have many sources, this guy explained it more clearly. I usually refer
to the Intel programmers reference manual for a specific CPU, yet the
x86 language is not defined by any single chip.
> Why is the width of the EIP register an implementation detail?
> Explain how you decided to draw that line.
My end goal was to provide the easiest possible way to see every single
detail of the execution trace of the halting problem counter-example.
I needed the highest possible abstraction that was Turing complete.
People needed to be able to see the overall architecture of the program
and not have it buried in a quadrillion details. My actual halting
problem refutation will be in "C", its execution trace has to be in x86
assembly language and the "C" program examines the x86 machine language.
>> The x86 language is defined by its instructions:
>> (a) Exactly how each instruction is encoded as a sequence of bytes.
>> (b) The primary change to the machine state caused by executing the
>> instruction. (AKA the most basic semantics of the instruction).
>
> Only by its instructions? Not by, say, the sizes of its registers?
The size of the registers is an implentation detail that I count as part
of the language specification.
>>> I rarely deal with assembly or machine language, and x86 isn't
>>> the architecture I'm most familiar with, but my understanding
>>> (supplemented by a quick Google search just now) is that the
>>> architecture includes an "instruction pointer" or "IP", a register
>>> that old the memory address of the next instruction that will be
>>> generated. Depending on the mode, the IP can be 16 bits ("ip"),
>>> 32 bits ("eip"), or 64 bits ("rip"). The IP as I understand it, is
>>> part of the model of computation defined by the x86 architecture.
>>> A jump instruction, whether it's absolute or relative, can only
>>> specify one of 2**N possible targets, where N is no greater than 64.
>>>
>>> A program running on a x86 in 32-bit mode could in principle execute
>>> a trillion jump instructions, but those instructions cannot possibly
>>> refer to more than 2**32 distinct target addresses.
>>
>> Sure they can because each one of them can jump 0x7fffffff bytes
>> forward. This is documented on the link that I provided.
>
> Circular reasoning. You say it can do it because it can do it.
>
The syntax of the x86 language stipulates that an instruction can be
specified as correct syntax that jumps to an address 50% greater than
the maximum address that fits in a 32-bit register.
>> What happens when they exceed 0xffffffff is an implementation detail.
>
> Hardly.
An operating system exception is certainly not aspect what-so-ever of
any abstract model of computation.
>
>>> It's entirely possible that I'm missing something.
>>>
>>> What I'm looking for is (a) definitive documentation of the "x86
>>> language" and (b) an explanation for why the fixed size of the
>>> instruction pointer is not part of the abstract model of computation.
>>>
>>> Now of course someone could define such an abstract model in which
>>> jumps are *not* defined in terms of a fixed-width instruction
>>> pointer, and that could provide a basis for accessing unbounded
>>> storage. (Then again, defining a paper tape interface could do
>>> the same thing more straightforwardly.)
>>>
>>> But as far as I can tell, such an abstract model would necessarily
>>> be inconsistent with the x86 architecture. My hunch is that your
>>> assertion that the fixed width of the IP is not part of the abstract
>>> model is arbitrary and not supported by any definitive document,
>>> but I'm prepared to be proven wrong.
>>
>> Study the link that I provided.
>
> From that link (and I'd still like to see something *definitive*):
>
> A relative offset (rel8, rel16, or rel32) is generally specified
> as a label in assembly code, but at the machine code level, it
> is encoded as a signed 8-, 16-, or 32-bit immediate value. This
> value is added to the value in the EIP register. (Here, the
> EIP register contains the address of the instruction following
> the JMP instruction). When using relative offsets, the opcode
> (for short vs. near jumps) and the operand-size attribute (for
> near relative jumps) determines the size of the target operand
> (8, 16, or 32 bits).
>
> The 8-, 16-, or 32-bit value is added to the value in the EIP register.
> Do you claim that the EIP register can be infinitely wide? Do you claim
> that it can old an address whose value exceeds 2**64?
>
The syntax of the language specifies that the EIP would roll over like
an odometer and reference memory in the next adjacent 4GB block.
0FFFFFFFFh + 07FFFFFFFh = 07FFFFFFEh
The above arithmetic shows that it has to roll over like an odometer.
The semantics of a memory address that is 07FFFFFFF bytes above
0FFFFFFFF specifies that this address is reachable.
> (I know you've already acknowledged that the relative offset can't
> exceed 32 bits, so don't bother arguing about that.)
>
> Again, I can imagine that there might be some abstract x86-based
> architecture *with significant changes* that could support an
> arbitrarily large address range. But it wouldn't be "the x86 language"
> as you call it.
>
--
Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-23 22:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE |
| Message-ID | <87pn7g4mu3.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #22560 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> On 8/23/2020 10:47 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
[...]
>>> Study the link that I provided.
>>
>> From that link (and I'd still like to see something *definitive*):
>>
>> A relative offset (rel8, rel16, or rel32) is generally specified
>> as a label in assembly code, but at the machine code level, it
>> is encoded as a signed 8-, 16-, or 32-bit immediate value. This
>> value is added to the value in the EIP register. (Here, the
>> EIP register contains the address of the instruction following
>> the JMP instruction). When using relative offsets, the opcode
>> (for short vs. near jumps) and the operand-size attribute (for
>> near relative jumps) determines the size of the target operand
>> (8, 16, or 32 bits).
>>
>> The 8-, 16-, or 32-bit value is added to the value in the EIP register.
>> Do you claim that the EIP register can be infinitely wide? Do you claim
>> that it can old an address whose value exceeds 2**64?
>
> The syntax of the language specifies that the EIP would roll over like
> an odometer and reference memory in the next adjacent 4GB block.
> 0FFFFFFFFh + 07FFFFFFFh = 07FFFFFFEh
> The above arithmetic shows that it has to roll over like an odometer.
>
> The semantics of a memory address that is 07FFFFFFF bytes above
> 0FFFFFFFF specifies that this address is reachable.
Explain to me how the "syntax of the language" specifies that. Cite a
source that says that's what it means. Why does it *have to* roll over
like an odometer? If I have an actual x86 chip where it *doesn't* roll
over and address 17FFFFFFE *isn't* accessible, does that chip violate
the "x86 language"?
Or is it true because you assert it?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-24 01:52 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE |
| Message-ID | <w--dnTpT8MVe_t7CnZ2dnUU7-RfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #22565 |
On 8/24/2020 12:47 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> On 8/23/2020 10:47 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > [...] >>>> Study the link that I provided. >>> >>> From that link (and I'd still like to see something *definitive*): >>> >>> A relative offset (rel8, rel16, or rel32) is generally specified >>> as a label in assembly code, but at the machine code level, it >>> is encoded as a signed 8-, 16-, or 32-bit immediate value. This >>> value is added to the value in the EIP register. (Here, the >>> EIP register contains the address of the instruction following >>> the JMP instruction). When using relative offsets, the opcode >>> (for short vs. near jumps) and the operand-size attribute (for >>> near relative jumps) determines the size of the target operand >>> (8, 16, or 32 bits). >>> >>> The 8-, 16-, or 32-bit value is added to the value in the EIP register. >>> Do you claim that the EIP register can be infinitely wide? Do you claim >>> that it can old an address whose value exceeds 2**64? >> >> The syntax of the language specifies that the EIP would roll over like >> an odometer and reference memory in the next adjacent 4GB block. >> 0FFFFFFFFh + 07FFFFFFFh = 07FFFFFFEh >> The above arithmetic shows that it has to roll over like an odometer. >> >> The semantics of a memory address that is 07FFFFFFF bytes above >> 0FFFFFFFF specifies that this address is reachable. > > Explain to me how the "syntax of the language" specifies that. ; This specifies a jump 2GB above the maximum value of EIP fffffff0: EBFFFFFF7F ; Since it specifies a jump 2GB above the maximum value of EIP ; then according to the syntax of the language this memory exists. > Cite a source that says that's what it means. I already cited the source. It is the same source. > Why does it *have to* roll over like an odometer? That is how fixed width arithmetic works. fffffff0 + 5 + 7FFFFFFF = 7FFFFFF4 > If I have an actual x86 chip where it *doesn't* roll The hardware implementation overrides the syntax of the language. > over and address 17FFFFFFE *isn't* accessible, does that chip violate > the "x86 language"? Here is the architecture that the x86 language specifies: If the implementation detail of the memory architecture of the x86 language was an unlimited sequence of contiguous 4GB blocks and the absolute addressing modes of the 86 language only referred to addresses within the current 4GB block then it becomes rather obvious that the x86 language exactly as it currently exists specifies access to unlimited memory. -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-24 00:30 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE |
| Message-ID | <87lfi44i1g.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> |
| In reply to | #22566 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> On 8/24/2020 12:47 AM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>> On 8/23/2020 10:47 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>>>> Study the link that I provided.
>>>>
>>>> From that link (and I'd still like to see something *definitive*):
>>>>
>>>> A relative offset (rel8, rel16, or rel32) is generally specified
>>>> as a label in assembly code, but at the machine code level, it
>>>> is encoded as a signed 8-, 16-, or 32-bit immediate value. This
>>>> value is added to the value in the EIP register. (Here, the
>>>> EIP register contains the address of the instruction following
>>>> the JMP instruction). When using relative offsets, the opcode
>>>> (for short vs. near jumps) and the operand-size attribute (for
>>>> near relative jumps) determines the size of the target operand
>>>> (8, 16, or 32 bits).
>>>>
>>>> The 8-, 16-, or 32-bit value is added to the value in the EIP register.
>>>> Do you claim that the EIP register can be infinitely wide? Do you claim
>>>> that it can old an address whose value exceeds 2**64?
>>>
>>> The syntax of the language specifies that the EIP would roll over like
>>> an odometer and reference memory in the next adjacent 4GB block.
>>> 0FFFFFFFFh + 07FFFFFFFh = 07FFFFFFEh
>>> The above arithmetic shows that it has to roll over like an odometer.
>>>
>>> The semantics of a memory address that is 07FFFFFFF bytes above
>>> 0FFFFFFFF specifies that this address is reachable.
>>
>> Explain to me how the "syntax of the language" specifies that.
>
> ; This specifies a jump 2GB above the maximum value of EIP
> fffffff0: EBFFFFFF7F
The *syntax* says no such thing. You're talking about semantics.
> ; Since it specifies a jump 2GB above the maximum value of EIP
> ; then according to the syntax of the language this memory exists.
>
>> Cite a source that says that's what it means. I already cited the source. It is the same source.
>
>> Why does it *have to* roll over like an odometer?
> That is how fixed width arithmetic works.
> fffffff0 + 5 + 7FFFFFFF = 7FFFFFF4
That says nothing about going the fffffff0: EBFFFFFF7F that you claimed
above.
>> If I have an actual x86 chip where it *doesn't* roll
> The hardware implementation overrides the syntax of the language.
>
>> over and address 17FFFFFFE *isn't* accessible, does that chip violate
>> the "x86 language"?
>
> Here is the architecture that the x86 language specifies:
>
> If the implementation detail of the memory architecture of the x86
> language was an unlimited sequence of contiguous 4GB blocks and the
> absolute addressing modes of the 86 language only referred to
> addresses within the current 4GB block then it becomes rather obvious
> that the x86 language exactly as it currently exists specifies access
> to unlimited memory.
That's your claim. Can you support it by citing something that you
didn't write?
I understand that you're defining some kind of *extension* to the x86.
And yet you refuse to acknowledge that it's an extension, and insist
that everything you say about it is implied by the syntax.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
Working, but not speaking, for Philips Healthcare
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-24 10:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE |
| Message-ID | <guadnRFWBqttf97CnZ2dnUU7-b_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #22567 |
On 8/24/2020 2:30 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> On 8/24/2020 12:47 AM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> On 8/23/2020 10:47 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> [...] >>>>>> Study the link that I provided. >>>>> >>>>> From that link (and I'd still like to see something *definitive*): >>>>> >>>>> A relative offset (rel8, rel16, or rel32) is generally specified >>>>> as a label in assembly code, but at the machine code level, it >>>>> is encoded as a signed 8-, 16-, or 32-bit immediate value. This >>>>> value is added to the value in the EIP register. (Here, the >>>>> EIP register contains the address of the instruction following >>>>> the JMP instruction). When using relative offsets, the opcode >>>>> (for short vs. near jumps) and the operand-size attribute (for >>>>> near relative jumps) determines the size of the target operand >>>>> (8, 16, or 32 bits). >>>>> >>>>> The 8-, 16-, or 32-bit value is added to the value in the EIP register. >>>>> Do you claim that the EIP register can be infinitely wide? Do you claim >>>>> that it can old an address whose value exceeds 2**64? >>>> >>>> The syntax of the language specifies that the EIP would roll over like >>>> an odometer and reference memory in the next adjacent 4GB block. >>>> 0FFFFFFFFh + 07FFFFFFFh = 07FFFFFFEh >>>> The above arithmetic shows that it has to roll over like an odometer. >>>> >>>> The semantics of a memory address that is 07FFFFFFF bytes above >>>> 0FFFFFFFF specifies that this address is reachable. >>> >>> Explain to me how the "syntax of the language" specifies that. >> >> ; This specifies a jump 2GB above the maximum value of EIP >> fffffff0: E9FFFFFF7F We will start with just the facts: https://c9x.me/x86/html/file_module_x86_id_147.html E9 cd JMP rel32 Jump near, relative, displacement relative to next instruction. FFFFFFF0: E9FFFFFF7F Indicates that the EIP is to be changed to a value that is 7FFFFFFF greater than FFFFFFF5, which is the next address after fffffff0. FFFFFFF5 + 7FFFFFFF = 17FFFFFF4 The instruction is @ address FFFFFFF0 The Opcode: E9 indicates a jmp to a signed 32-bit displacement from the next instruction @ FFFFFFF5 The relative displacement is the immediate value encoded directly in the instruction as: FFFFFF7F, because these bytes are in little-endian order they are listed backwards. They actually refer to the signed 32-bit integer: 7FFFFFFF. So the instruction says to jump to FFFFFFF5 + 7FFFFFFF which is an address that is nearly 2GB larger than the EIP can hold. EIP = FFFFFFF5 + 7FFFFFFF, truncates the high order bit rolling the EIP over like an odometer: 7FFFFFF4 Before we proceed with any interpretation of these facts lets first come to a mutual agreement about these facts themselves. -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-24 11:40 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE |
| Message-ID | <ri0u2l$2bo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #22566 |
On 2020-08-24 00:52, olcott wrote: > If the implementation detail of the memory architecture of the x86 > language was an unlimited sequence of contiguous 4GB blocks and the > absolute addressing modes of the 86 language only referred to addresses > within the current 4GB block then it becomes rather obvious that the x86 > language exactly as it currently exists specifies access to unlimited > memory. If all absolute addresses refer to the 'current block', how exactly does one identify which block is 'current'? AFAIK the x86 does not have a 'current block pointer'. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-24 13:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE |
| Message-ID | <kZCdnUtjBsDum9nCnZ2dnUU7-cGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #22570 |
On 8/24/2020 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2020-08-24 00:52, olcott wrote: > >> If the implementation detail of the memory architecture of the x86 >> language was an unlimited sequence of contiguous 4GB blocks and the >> absolute addressing modes of the 86 language only referred to >> addresses within the current 4GB block then it becomes rather obvious >> that the x86 language exactly as it currently exists specifies access >> to unlimited memory. > > If all absolute addresses refer to the 'current block', how exactly does > one identify which block is 'current'? AFAIK the x86 does not have a > 'current block pointer'. > > André > > The idea is that it is exactly like a Turing Machine tape head. The EIP points to the current byte address in the current 4GB block. There are an unlimited number of 4GB blocks before and after the current 4GB block. -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-24 13:23 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE |
| Message-ID | <ri144c$a38$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #22572 |
On 2020-08-24 12:26, olcott wrote: > On 8/24/2020 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2020-08-24 00:52, olcott wrote: >> >>> If the implementation detail of the memory architecture of the x86 >>> language was an unlimited sequence of contiguous 4GB blocks and the >>> absolute addressing modes of the 86 language only referred to >>> addresses within the current 4GB block then it becomes rather obvious >>> that the x86 language exactly as it currently exists specifies access >>> to unlimited memory. >> >> If all absolute addresses refer to the 'current block', how exactly >> does one identify which block is 'current'? AFAIK the x86 does not >> have a 'current block pointer'. >> >> André >> >> > > The idea is that it is exactly like a Turing Machine tape head. > The EIP points to the current byte address in the current 4GB block. > There are an unlimited number of 4GB blocks before and after the current > 4GB block. So how do I know which of those blocks the EIP is pointing at? Talking about the 'current' 4GB block is meaningless unless you have some way of differentiating between these blocks. What changes in the system when it moves from one of these 4GB blocks to the next or previous block? André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-24 16:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE |
| Message-ID | <q-SdnbHBlPJPt9nCnZ2dnUU7-XXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #22573 |
On 8/24/2020 2:23 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2020-08-24 12:26, olcott wrote: >> On 8/24/2020 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2020-08-24 00:52, olcott wrote: >>> >>>> If the implementation detail of the memory architecture of the x86 >>>> language was an unlimited sequence of contiguous 4GB blocks and the >>>> absolute addressing modes of the 86 language only referred to >>>> addresses within the current 4GB block then it becomes rather >>>> obvious that the x86 language exactly as it currently exists >>>> specifies access to unlimited memory. >>> >>> If all absolute addresses refer to the 'current block', how exactly >>> does one identify which block is 'current'? AFAIK the x86 does not >>> have a 'current block pointer'. >>> >>> André >>> >>> >> >> The idea is that it is exactly like a Turing Machine tape head. >> The EIP points to the current byte address in the current 4GB block. > >> There are an unlimited number of 4GB blocks before and after the >> current 4GB block. > > So how do I know which of those blocks the EIP is pointing at? Talking > about the 'current' 4GB block is meaningless unless you have some way of > differentiating between these blocks. > The current 4GB block is exactly the same thing as the current location of the Turing machine tape head. > What changes in the system when it moves from one of these 4GB blocks to > the next or previous block? > > André > A relative jump into a next 4GB memory block or a prior 4GB memory block only changes the value of the EIP register. Relative memory addressing allows code and data to be copied between 4GB boundaries. -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-24 20:30 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE |
| Message-ID | <ri1t43$u6j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #22574 |
On 2020-08-24 15:02, olcott wrote: > On 8/24/2020 2:23 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2020-08-24 12:26, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/24/2020 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2020-08-24 00:52, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>> If the implementation detail of the memory architecture of the x86 >>>>> language was an unlimited sequence of contiguous 4GB blocks and the >>>>> absolute addressing modes of the 86 language only referred to >>>>> addresses within the current 4GB block then it becomes rather >>>>> obvious that the x86 language exactly as it currently exists >>>>> specifies access to unlimited memory. >>>> >>>> If all absolute addresses refer to the 'current block', how exactly >>>> does one identify which block is 'current'? AFAIK the x86 does not >>>> have a 'current block pointer'. >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>>> >>> >>> The idea is that it is exactly like a Turing Machine tape head. >>> The EIP points to the current byte address in the current 4GB block. >> >>> There are an unlimited number of 4GB blocks before and after the >>> current 4GB block. >> >> So how do I know which of those blocks the EIP is pointing at? Talking >> about the 'current' 4GB block is meaningless unless you have some way >> of differentiating between these blocks. >> > > The current 4GB block is exactly the same thing as the current location > of the Turing machine tape head. I have absolutely no idea how to interpret that analogy. >> What changes in the system when it moves from one of these 4GB blocks >> to the next or previous block? If you actually answered the above maybe your analogy would be come clearer. What exactly changes in the system when a different 4GB block becomes the new 'current' block? André >> André >> > > A relative jump into a next 4GB memory block or a prior 4GB memory block > only changes the value of the EIP register. Relative memory addressing > allows code and data to be copied between 4GB boundaries. -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-25 09:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE |
| Message-ID | <D9WdnRcaNPX0vNjCnZ2dnUU7-eHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #22579 |
On 8/24/2020 9:30 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2020-08-24 15:02, olcott wrote: >> On 8/24/2020 2:23 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2020-08-24 12:26, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/24/2020 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2020-08-24 00:52, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> If the implementation detail of the memory architecture of the x86 >>>>>> language was an unlimited sequence of contiguous 4GB blocks and >>>>>> the absolute addressing modes of the 86 language only referred to >>>>>> addresses within the current 4GB block then it becomes rather >>>>>> obvious that the x86 language exactly as it currently exists >>>>>> specifies access to unlimited memory. >>>>> >>>>> If all absolute addresses refer to the 'current block', how exactly >>>>> does one identify which block is 'current'? AFAIK the x86 does not >>>>> have a 'current block pointer'. >>>>> >>>>> André >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> The idea is that it is exactly like a Turing Machine tape head. >>>> The EIP points to the current byte address in the current 4GB block. >>> >>>> There are an unlimited number of 4GB blocks before and after the >>>> current 4GB block. >>> >>> So how do I know which of those blocks the EIP is pointing at? >>> Talking about the 'current' 4GB block is meaningless unless you have >>> some way of differentiating between these blocks. >>> >> >> The current 4GB block is exactly the same thing as the current >> location of the Turing machine tape head. > > I have absolutely no idea how to interpret that analogy. --- So how do I know which of those blocks the EIP is pointing at? Like a Turing Machine tape head has no uniquely defined index identifier neither do the sequence of 4GB blocks. Where everywhere you are is only relatitve to where you have been before. If you made a Turing Machine that counted to infinity and stored the result the relative index of your current location would eventually wrap across 4GB boundaries. We could use the typical Turing Machine convention of delimiting the numeric digit strings with a space character. Whether we used base 10 ACSII digits or a base 256 number system we will eventually have a googleplex of 4GB blocks filled with the representation of a single integer value. RIP relative addressing of 64-bit architectures physically implements this abstract model of computation directly. The abstract model itself specifies that an unlimited number of 0x7FFFFFFF jumps can be made to higher memory. When one of these jumps exceeds installed memory a hardware fault occurs. > >>> What changes in the system when it moves from one of these 4GB blocks >>> to the next or previous block? > > If you actually answered the above maybe your analogy would be come > clearer. What exactly changes in the system when a different 4GB block > becomes the new 'current' block? > > André > >>> André >>> >> >> A relative jump into a next 4GB memory block or a prior 4GB memory >> block only changes the value of the EIP register. Relative memory >> addressing allows code and data to be copied between 4GB boundaries. > > -- Copyright 2020 Pete Olcott
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2020-08-25 08:56 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Simply defining Gödel Incompleteness and Tarski Undefinability away V42 [x86 is Turing complete] ROOKIE MISTAKE |
| Message-ID | <ri38rd$5k1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #22583 |
On 2020-08-25 08:34, olcott wrote: > On 8/24/2020 9:30 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2020-08-24 15:02, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/24/2020 2:23 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2020-08-24 12:26, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 8/24/2020 12:40 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2020-08-24 00:52, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> If the implementation detail of the memory architecture of the >>>>>>> x86 language was an unlimited sequence of contiguous 4GB blocks >>>>>>> and the absolute addressing modes of the 86 language only >>>>>>> referred to addresses within the current 4GB block then it >>>>>>> becomes rather obvious that the x86 language exactly as it >>>>>>> currently exists specifies access to unlimited memory. >>>>>> >>>>>> If all absolute addresses refer to the 'current block', how >>>>>> exactly does one identify which block is 'current'? AFAIK the x86 >>>>>> does not have a 'current block pointer'. >>>>>> >>>>>> André >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The idea is that it is exactly like a Turing Machine tape head. >>>>> The EIP points to the current byte address in the current 4GB block. >>>> >>>>> There are an unlimited number of 4GB blocks before and after the >>>>> current 4GB block. >>>> >>>> So how do I know which of those blocks the EIP is pointing at? >>>> Talking about the 'current' 4GB block is meaningless unless you have >>>> some way of differentiating between these blocks. >>>> >>> >>> The current 4GB block is exactly the same thing as the current >>> location of the Turing machine tape head. >> >> I have absolutely no idea how to interpret that analogy. > > --- So how do I know which of those blocks the EIP is pointing at? > Like a Turing Machine tape head has no uniquely defined index identifier > neither do the sequence of 4GB blocks. Where everywhere you are is only > relatitve to where you have been before. There's no analog to a Turing Machine head in the x86. The x86 uses random access memory unlike a Turing Machine. So whatever it is you are trying to claim here is entirely unclear. So say I have access to one of your modified x86s which has been running for some unspecified amount of time and I can examine any aspect of it. How do I determine *which* 4GB block the contents of the EIP is referring to? > If you made a Turing Machine that counted to infinity and stored the > result the relative index of your current location would eventually wrap > across 4GB boundaries. > > We could use the typical Turing Machine convention of delimiting the > numeric digit strings with a space character. Whether we used base 10 > ACSII digits or a base 256 number system we will eventually have a > googleplex of 4GB blocks filled with the representation of a single > integer value. > > RIP relative addressing of 64-bit architectures physically implements > this abstract model of computation directly. No it doesn't. RIP is a 64-bit register which imposes an upper limit on the number of memory locations which can be addressed (and AFAIK no x86 chip actually has a 64-bit address bus so the real limit will be considerably less). > The abstract model itself > specifies that an unlimited number of 0x7FFFFFFF jumps can be made to > higher memory. When one of these jumps exceeds installed memory a Only if your relative addressing is done in something wider than 32-bits. Relative addressing simply adds an offset to the EIP. Since this arithmetic is performed in 32-bits, it can never get to this hypothetical next block. It would wrap around to the beginning of the current block (except I still have no idea what 'current block' means). André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 34 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 34 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web