Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
| Subject | Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.ai.philosophy |
| References | (26 earlier) <u78c0r$coij$1@dont-email.me> <BCVlM.7240$JLp4.2253@fx46.iad> <u7d1an$13a02$1@dont-email.me> <v1pmM.14777$_%y4.13119@fx48.iad> <u7d951$14e7q$1@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <RWpmM.7638$3XE8.2549@fx42.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2023-06-26 20:20 -0400 |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 6/26/23 8:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/26/2023 6:18 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/26/23 5:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/25/2023 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/24/23 11:24 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/24/23 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 4:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 3:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 4:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 2:31 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 3:22 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 1:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 12:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 1:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 11:57 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 10:13 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/23 9:53 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/24/2023 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 10:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 9:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/23 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/23/2023 8:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every TMD2 defines a correct answer, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question is valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus the question: "Are you a little girl?"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> must be false for everyone because the exact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same word-for-word question is false for you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nooe, because THAT question uses a pronoun to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reference what it is talking about, so the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question veries based on who it is said to.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {TM1, TMD2} pairs such that TMD2 does the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> opposite of whatever Boolean value that TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value that corresponds to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of its TMD2 input that each TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> element does the opposite of the value that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this TM1 element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which means that you have proven it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible to make a correct Halt Decider, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the Halting Question is self-contradictory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem is that since TMD2 changes in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> set, there isn't a single instance of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> question in view.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you a tautology and you disagreed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You asked a Red Herring, and I pointed it out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked a tautology and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WHERE did I say that your statement was factually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong verse point out that it doesn't prove what you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want it to?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think you don't understand what you read and write.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, how do you "ASK" a tautology. A Tautology
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't a QUESTION, but a STATEMENT.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You seem to have category errors built into your brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I asked you if a tautology is true and you denied it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is like I asked you if all of the black cats in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Australia are black
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and you said you don't know you have to check them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one at a time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, still unable to provide refernce to show you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements which are just lies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Referring every element of the infinite set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of {TM1, TMD2}
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> pairs such that TMD2 does the opposite of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever Boolean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> value that TMD2 returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is the reason why no TM1 element of this set
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returns a value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> that corresponds to the behavior of its TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input that each
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> TMD2 element does the opposite of the value
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this TM1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> element returns.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are all the black cats in Australia black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, what is the "Tautology" there? There is no STATEMENT
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is always true in every situation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you disagree that all of the black cats in Australia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are black?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe some of the black cats in Australia are white dogs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thats just bad logic speaking a Strawmen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every member of set X that has property P and property Q
>>>>>>>>>>>>> has property P.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't disagree that every element of the set has a TMD2
>>>>>>>>>>>> that does the opposite of what TMD1 says. I disagreed that
>>>>>>>>>>>> this mean the Halting Question, i.e, the question of the
>>>>>>>>>>>> behaivor of TMD2 has a problem. The Halting Question ALWAYS
>>>>>>>>>>>> has a correct answer, it is just that TMD1 never gives it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Why is it that TM1 cannot provide a Boolean value that
>>>>>>>>>>> corresponds to the actual behavior of TMD2?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That a problem with the programmer,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words the only reason that halting cannot be solved is
>>>>>>>>> that every programmer in the universe is simply too stupid?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, because it is mathematically shown not be computable (see
>>>>>>>> below)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> or the fact that the function being asked for isn't computable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words it can't be done simply because it just
>>>>>>>>> can't be done, no circular reasoning here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It can't be done because the "pathological" program is a valid
>>>>>>>> program.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Syntactically valid is not the same as semantically valid.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is no "Semantic" limitation in the requirement of ALL PROGRAMS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every polar (yes/no) question that contradicts both answers is an
>>>>>>> incorrect question. Likewise for inputs to a decider.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Can any decider X possibly correctly return any Boolean value to
>>>>> any input Y that does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that X
>>>>> returns?
>>>>> (a) Yes
>>>>> (b) No
>>>>> (c) Richard is a Troll
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, If I understand your poorly defined question, if decider X is
>>>> trying to decide on property P of input Y, and Y is designed to use
>>>> decider X and crates a value of property P opposite of what X says.
>>>>
>>>
>>> How would you say the question more clearly?
>>
>> Actually be clear in what you say. Since you mis-use so many words,
>> clearifying what I mean by them sometimes is needed.
>>
>
> So you believe that it is unclear yet have no idea how it could be said
> more clearly.
>
The problem is you misuse words so often, the only way you could be
clearer is to stop doing that.
You also "invent" words that don't have accpted meanings without
definit=ng them.
>>>
>>>> Note, X may be able to decide on many other inputs that property
>>>> correctly, but can not do so for this particular one.
>>>>
>>>> Note, since the decider was defined to take ANY program as input,
>>>> this sort of property becomes undecidable.
>>>>
>>>
>>> H does correctly determine that its input has a pathological
>>> relationship to H and specifically rejects its input on this basis.
>>
>> Only because it restricts its input to a non-turing complete set of
>> inputs. Remeber, you have defined that H can not be copied into D, for
>> "reasons", which shows that the input set isn't Turing Complete.
>>
>
> This limitation is not actually required. The alternative
> requires inline_H to have very messy inline assembly language
> that forces all function calls to be at an absolute rather than
> relative machine address.
Nope, the key point is that an actual Decider that accepts inputs that
can define copies of itself can't actually recognize when a program
calls a copy of itself as a "pathological" call to itself.
When I pointed this out to you before, you answer was that it was
impossible to create a "copy" of your H.
Why does the copy of H need some messy inline assembly when the original
one didn't? Why can't we just copy the actual code of H?
>
>>>
>>>> This is the basis of Rice's Theorem. Note, your configuration where
>>>> Y is made within the address space of X, and must directly call the
>>>> deciding X and not able to use another copy of it
>>>
>>> It took me the last two days to solve this issue in a better
>>> way than the way that took me six months to derive. I also
>>> reiterated and simplified my original method.
>>>
>>> This effort was not actually required because my simpler
>>> form of the halting problem instance commonly understood
>>> to be a halting problem instance.
>>>
>>
>> But it isn't actually one, so it isn't. You are just lying and serving
>> Strawman.
Since your H can't take in ALL programs as an input, the partial
solution is just a strawman.
>>
>>> A halting problem instance only requires that an input D do
>>> the opposite of whatever Boolean value that any corresponding
>>> H could possibly return.
>>
>> No, a Halting Decider
>
> I am defining {halting problem instance} not {halt decider}.
> By defining {halting problem instance} I prove that H/D is a
> {halting problem instance}. Thus no actual need for additional
> more convoluted cases that copy their input.
So, either your {Halting Problem Instance} uses an ACTUAL {Halt Decider}
or it is just a strawman.
There is nothing in the Halting Theory that says you can't build a
decider that decides on SOME cases.
>
>> needs to CORRECT answer about the HALTING PROPERTY, which is about the
>> actual behavior of the machine described by the input.
>>
>
> H is a decidability decider for itself with its input.
> Rice's theorem says this is impossible.
But the problem is your input isn't from a Turing Complete programming
environmenet, so Rice doesn't apply.
Until you show how H can take a truly arbitrary program, including one
that has its own copy of your decider, then you haven't met the
requirements to try to invoke Rice.
>
> By making slight changes to H it will report whether
> or not it will be able to determine the halt status
> of an input.
Which means your H is no longer a single program, and thus not "A Program"
>
> In this case H returns 1 for halting and not halting
> and returns 0 for pathological input.
So, show the code that does this. Remember, it needs to handle a Turing
Complete input, so needs to work on programs with their own copy of H,
so the address match trick doesn't work.
You keep on just assuming that impossible tasks can be done, they are
just difficult, but you just gloss over them.
>
>> Calling anything else a Halt Decider of Computability Theory, or
>> saying something besides one refutes the Halting Theory of
>> Computability proof is just a LIE.
>>
>>>
>>>> violates the requriement of "Any Program" as you have restricted the
>>>> cass the program can be, so your idea of making the property be (...
>>>> and not call X) isn't a valid condition, because it has been shown
>>>> that you can't actually detect that Y is calling some function that
>>>> is the equivalent of X in finite time.
>>>
>>
>
Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 20:27 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-22 22:25 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 22:16 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 00:32 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 00:06 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 08:11 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 10:39 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 16:46 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 16:05 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 17:26 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 16:41 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 18:48 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 18:08 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 19:42 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 19:03 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 20:16 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 19:32 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 20:55 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 20:16 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 21:32 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 20:46 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-23 22:14 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 21:44 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 07:16 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 08:53 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 11:13 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 10:57 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 12:37 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 12:01 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 13:29 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 12:42 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 14:19 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 14:22 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 15:31 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 15:10 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 16:24 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 16:41 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 15:59 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 17:08 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 16:39 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 19:02 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 18:11 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-24 19:51 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-24 22:24 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-25 07:33 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 16:52 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-26 19:18 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 19:05 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-26 20:20 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 20:13 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-26 22:13 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-26 22:34 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-27 07:52 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-27 11:27 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-27 19:02 -0400
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 07:53 -0700
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 11:46 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 09:49 -0700
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 12:19 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 10:22 -0700
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 12:37 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-23 17:15 -0500
csiph-web