Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.logic, comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy |
| Subject | Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? |
| Date | 2023-06-19 09:30 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <u6popm$23c2e$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (23 earlier) <ncOjM.290$_%y4.175@fx48.iad> <u6obsd$1r0k8$2@dont-email.me> <TcPjM.7724$4_6d.3325@fx06.iad> <u6oi69$1vh00$1@dont-email.me> <V6XjM.9621$8fUf.906@fx16.iad> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
On 6/19/2023 6:38 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/18/23 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/18/2023 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/18/23 9:43 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/18/2023 8:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/18/23 8:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/18/2023 7:01 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/18/23 7:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/18/2023 1:56 PM, Fritz Feldhase wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sunday, June 18, 2023 at 8:09:51 PM UTC+2, olcott wrote
>>>>>>>>> <nonsense>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A possible "practical solution" for an actual "halt decider"
>>>>>>>>> might be something I will call a semi-halt-decider here.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The latter allows for 3 answers (return values) when called:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> H(P, d) -> 1 "P(d) halts"
>>>>>>>>> H(P, d) -> -1 "P(d) doesn't halt."
>>>>>>>>> H(P, d) -> 0 "Don't know/can't tell if P(d) halts or not"
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Such a semi-halt-decider might be able to determine _the
>>>>>>>>> correct_ answer (1, -1) for a big class of casses. On the other
>>>>>>>>> hand, it would always have the possibility to "give up" (for
>>>>>>>>> certain cases) and anwer with 0: "Don't know/can't tell" (and
>>>>>>>>> this way be able to avoid INCORRECT ANSWERS concerning the
>>>>>>>>> actual behavior of P(d)).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The key difference with my work that is a true innovation in
>>>>>>>> this field
>>>>>>>> is that H doesn't simply give up. H specifically recognizes self-
>>>>>>>> contradictory inputs and rejects them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Termination Analyzer H prevents Denial of Service attacks*
>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_prevents_Denial_of_Service_attacks
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except the input isn't self-contradictory, since the input can't
>>>>>>> exist until H is defined, and once H is defined, the input has
>>>>>>> definite behavior, so there is no self-contradiction possilble,
>>>>>>> only error.
>>>>>> If I ask you what correct (yes or no) answer of could Jack reply
>>>>>> with?
>>>>>> Exactly why can’t you answer this?
>>>>>
>>>>> He has no answer that is correct, but that doesn't matter and is
>>>>> just you faliing into the fallacy of the Red Herring.
>>>>>
>>>> // The following is written in C
>>>> //
>>>> 01 typedef int (*ptr)(); // pointer to int function
>>>> 02 int H(ptr x, ptr y) // uses x86 emulator to simulate its input
>>>> 03
>>>> 04 int D(ptr x)
>>>> 05 {
>>>> 06 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>> 07 if (Halt_Status)
>>>> 08 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> 09 return Halt_Status;
>>>> 10 }
>>>> 11
>>>> 12 void main()
>>>> 13 {
>>>> 14 H(D,D);
>>>> 15 }
>>>>
>>>> Since the above H is an unspecified wildcard you are free to encode it
>>>> in any one of an infinite number of different ways and return any
>>>> Boolean value that you want.
>>>
>>> Nope, D isn't a PROGRAM until H is DEFINED.
>> That is why I triple dog dare you to define it or acknowledge that no
>> such program can possibly be defined because the input D to any
>> corresponding H is isomorphic to Jack's question posed to Jack.
>
> SO, you AGREE that a "Correct Halt Decider", as defined by the Halting
> Problem, can't exist.
>
I don't agree that your understanding of the halting problem is correct.
H is required to report on the actual behavior that it actually sees.
You and others are requiring H to report on behavior that it does not
see. You already also admitted that when H reports on this behavior that
it does not see that this changes this behavior that it does not see
making its report incorrect.
Within the false hypothesis that H is incorrect to report that its input
does not halt, the only alternative is to change the meaning of what H
reports. When H becomes a [BAD INPUT] decider no one can correctly say
that H is wrong. This also refutes Rice which is more important that
solving the halting problem because it has a much broader scope.
Termination Analyzer H determines the semantic property of
[GOOD INPUT] meaning that input D halts <and>
[BAD INPUT] meaning
(a) input D doesn't halt <or>
(b) D has a pathological relationship to H. This means that D calls H
and does the opposite of the Boolean value that H returns.
> It is easy to make D a program, just define some H, any H, then D is a
> valid program, and will either Halt or not. D's validity as a program is
> NOT dependent on H getting the right answer. Thus an H that just
> immediately returns 0 makes D a valid program.
>
H correctly determines that D has the semantic property of [BAD INPUT]
making Denial of Service (DoS) attack detector H correct to reject D.
>>
>> Once we acknowledge that the halting problem input to H is an incorrect
>> to H then we can understand that this incorrect question is aptly re-
>> framed into the correct question:
>
> Why is it "Incorrect"? The fact that H can't give the right answer is a
> problem with H, not with the input.
>
Then the problem with Jack's question is Jack not the fact that Jack's
question is self-contradictory for Jack. Jack is simply too stupid to
give a correct yes or no answer to a self-contradictory question. We all
know that Jack's question has a correct answer, yet Jack is simply too
stupid to decide between yes and no.
> The definition of a "Valid Input" for H, is that it represents a Program
> and its input. This call sequence does that, so the input is valid.
>
A syntactically valid input is not the same as a semantically valid
input. Any input that makes both Boolean return values the wrong answer
is a semantically invalid input.
>>
>> Does input D halt on its input [GOOD INPUT] or is D [BAD INPUT] that
>> either fails to halt or defines a pathological relationship to H.
>
> And D DOES halt on its input, since it will "call" H(D,D), which your H
> has been defined so that it will return 0 from that call.
>
Which is a correct return value for the semantic property of [BAD INPUT].
> There is nothing "BAD" about a D that doesn't halt,
Sure everyone knows that Denial of Service attacks are great. My
hospital loved it when they had no access to patient records for several
days.
> that just means it
> is an input that H needs to "reject" (return the "Non-Halting" value
> for). There is also nothing "Bad" about the "pathological" relationship
> between D and H, as that is just part of "Any Program".
>
Yes that is true everyone loves successful Denial of Service attacks.
If there was a DoS detector that could correctly reject every
[malevolent input] people would really hate that. They love successful
DoS attacks.
> Remember, if you change H to be the Hn, non-aborting version of it, and
> the make the Dn from that Hn, we find that Dn(Dn) will not halt, so Hn
> should have returned 0, but it just never returns an answer, showing
> that *H* is a defective machine, not meeting its requirements.
>
When H reports on the semantic property of [BAD INPUT] the labels could
be switched to account for all of the people that love successful Denial
of Service attacks. Only inputs that allow DoS attacks are construed as
[GOOD INPUTS]. Inputs that simply halt are now called [BAD INPUTS].
H still correctly decides a semantic property of D, thus H still refutes
Rice.
>>
>> This does overcome Rice's theorem for at least the reduction of Rice's
>> theorem to the halting problem.
>>
>> Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]?
>>
>
> No, because Rice's theorem is does the input have Semantic Property S,
> and a "pathological relationship" isn't considered a "BAD INPUT".
>
That is the only reason that Rice has not been overcome. No one ever
thought of a way to exclude [BAD INPUTS] thus making semantic properties
undecidable. Once we do exclude [BAD INPUTS] then semantic properties
are decidable.
> ALL PROGRAMS means ALL PROGRAMS, not all the ones I can handle.
>
H correctly determines the semantic property of [BAD INPUT] prior to my
work no H could ever correctly determine any semantic property. That H
does correctly determine at least a single semantic property when Rice
claims that no H can every determine any semantic property refutes Rice.
> IF you wnat to try to define a Semntic Property S that somehow includes
> this pathology in its criteria, you need to FORMALLY define what you
> mean by it. You also need to show that the property is still wholly
> Semantic, and that you haven't given yourself a Syntactic property.
>
When-so-ever any input to any decider calls this decider with an input
that does the opposite of whatever Boolean value that this decider
returns this input <is> a pathological input. My H has been able to do
that for more than two years.
My system also works with embedded copies of deciders yet this makes the
code much more difficult to understand so I didn't implement it.
> You also then need to show that you can get the correct answer for ALL
> inputs, the Achilies Heel for a Halt Decider might not be the Achilies
> Heel for your new decider, so just because you handle it, doesn't mean
> you have PROVEN that you can answwer that property.
H does correctly refute Rice's theorem for the halting problem's
pathological input. This is much more success than anyone else has ever
achieved. Once this success is acknowledged a well funded large team of
experts can work on extending my ideas.
--
Copyright 2023 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 00:54 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 00:54 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 08:09 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 11:59 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 10:24 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 12:35 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 13:43 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 13:23 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 16:27 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-17 22:09 +0100
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 16:46 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2023-06-17 16:03 -0600
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 19:18 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 18:44 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 21:46 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 21:35 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 23:03 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 19:13 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 18:58 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 21:31 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 21:29 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-17 22:57 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-17 22:10 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 08:02 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 09:32 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 08:50 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 08:59 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 12:31 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 11:41 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 09:54 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 12:03 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 10:18 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 12:24 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 11:05 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 13:09 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 11:44 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 13:55 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 11:56 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 14:10 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 12:30 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 18:41 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 20:01 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 17:38 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 19:59 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 21:29 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 20:43 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 22:38 -0400
Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 22:31 -0500
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-19 07:38 -0400
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 09:30 -0500
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 08:07 -0700
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-19 20:45 -0400
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 22:57 -0500
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 07:19 -0400
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 10:09 -0500
Re: Does input D have semantic property S or is input D [BAD INPUT]? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 11:48 -0400
Termination Analyzer H determines the semantic property of .. olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 23:58 -0500
Re: Termination Analyzer H determines the semantic property of .. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-19 07:38 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 20:27 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 21:34 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 17:15 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 19:46 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 12:54 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 12:09 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 13:46 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 13:05 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 14:20 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 13:30 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 14:43 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 13:47 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 15:19 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 14:26 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 16:10 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-18 18:43 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-18 19:59 -0400
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 08:37 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 10:58 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 11:18 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 15:04 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 14:32 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-19 21:08 +0100
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question PLEASE LOOK AT MT REPLY [Ben Bacarisse] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 15:22 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 14:17 -0700
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-19 23:48 +0100
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-19 17:10 -0700
Ben Bacarisse specifically targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 10:06 -0500
Re: Ben Bacarisse specifically targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 11:48 -0400
Re: dishonest subject lines Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2023-06-20 17:02 +0100
Ben Bacarisse specifically targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 12:25 -0500
Re: Bla Bla bla Fritz Feldhase <franz.fritschee.ff@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 10:33 -0700
Ben Bacarisse specifically targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 13:17 -0500
Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 14:57 -0500
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 16:34 -0400
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:42 -0500
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 16:52 -0400
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 16:39 -0500
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 17:53 -0400
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 17:07 -0500
Re: Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts to discourage honest dialogue] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-20 18:52 -0400
Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 14:59 -0500
Refutation of the Ben Bacarisse Rebuttal [Ben targets my posts] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-20 15:00 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 23:12 -0500
Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 23:01 -0500
ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2023-06-21 19:10 +0000
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question vallor <vallor@vallor.earth> - 2023-06-21 19:23 +0000
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 14:59 -0500
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-21 19:01 -0400
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 19:40 -0500
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-21 22:47 -0400
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-21 21:58 -0500
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-22 07:26 -0400
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2023-06-22 09:18 -0500
Re: ChatGPT and stack limits (was: Re: ChatGPT agrees that the halting problem input can be construed as an incorrect question Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2023-06-22 21:06 -0400
csiph-web