Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient)

Subject	Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient)
Newsgroups	comp.theory, sci.logic
References	(6 earlier) <tielf9$2qek3$1@dont-email.me> <5PC2L.626661$iiS8.264558@fx17.iad> <tieu1d$2rvvl$1@dont-email.me> <LmD2L.87135$1Ly7.45066@fx34.iad> <tif04d$2rvvl$4@dont-email.me>
From	Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org>
Message-ID	<4JD2L.87137$1Ly7.8729@fx34.iad> (permalink)
Organization	Forte - www.forteinc.com
Date	2022-10-15 15:19 -0400

Cross-posted to 2 groups.

Show all headers | View raw

On 10/15/22 3:02 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 10/15/2022 1:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 10/15/22 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> *Professor Sipser has agreed to these verbatim words* (and no more)
>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H
>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running
>>> unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report
>>> that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>
>>> *correct paraphrase of above paragraph*
>>>
>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly predicts that its correct and
>>> complete simulation of D would never stop running then H is correct
>>> to abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D specifies a
>>> non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>
>> I suppose the big question is why did you ask him the "Baddly" worded 
>> version and not the "Correct" Paraphrase version?
>>
>> You have been working on this for 18 years and know what people cal 
>> you out on.
>>
>> Note, even your paraphrase doesn't meet whqt you have been trying to 
>> claim, since you need words that actually change the behavior of H to 
>> non-aborting in the version called by D.
>>
>> Since H isn't that version, D doesn't actually call it, so you can't 
>> use that as your justification.
>>
>> FAIL.
> 
> Does the paraphrase meet your objection about H predicting the behavior 
> of its complete and correct simulation of D when this H does not do a 
> complete and correct simulation of D?
> 

No, because that still is looking at an input that isn't the D that is 
actually given to it.

Since H DOESN'T actually do a complete and correct simulation of its 
input, anything dependent on it doing one is incorrect.

You need to learn that the input must be processed AS GIVEN, INCLUDING 
the behavior of the H therein must match the behavior of the H that is 
giving the answer.

That is where the LIE of your "proof" resides. You chagne the H that D 
calls, and thus not looking at the actual behavior of the actual input 
that H was given.

Part of the problem is that you have adopted a faulty execution model by 
intertwining your H and P/D into a single memory space, but you don't 
seem to have the brain cells to understand that. I mentioned the problem 
a long time ago.

In one sense the error doesn't matter, because even with that, H still 
can't give the right answer by the proper measure, it just allows you 
more easily to try to push the incorrct measure.

You are just stuck in insisting that we aren't allowed to look at the 
definitional right answer, the behavior of the actual machine, because 
it shows you are wrong so easily, thus you try to say that an alternate 
definition is right, but then you either need to admit that you aren't 
actually working on the Halting Problem, or that you alternate 
definition is incorrect, because it doesn't match the actual requirements.

D() returns 1 if H(D) returns 0, thus H(D) returning 0 because it thinks 
D won't answer is incorrect, since this D() will NEVER not return an 
answer if H meets the requirement to be a decider. It just can't not return.

H thinking D is non-haltinh is just H thinking IT is non-halting, and 
thus non-conforming.

ANY answer from H for this D based on non-halting MUST be based on H not 
meeting its requirements.

Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Olcott lies Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-14 19:23 +0200
  Re: Olcott lies Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-14 20:36 +0100
    Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 14:49 -0500
      Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 16:04 -0400
        Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 15:19 -0500
          Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 16:31 -0400
            Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 15:45 -0500
              Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 16:56 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 16:20 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 17:49 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 17:21 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 19:04 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 18:12 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 19:21 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 18:32 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 19:37 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 18:59 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:06 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-18 14:43 -0500
      Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-14 23:05 +0100
        Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 17:34 -0500
          Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 01:07 +0200
          Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 19:11 -0400
            Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 18:17 -0500
              Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 01:21 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 18:43 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 19:59 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:03 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:22 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:10 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:26 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 19:31 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 02:04 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:13 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 02:51 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 20:41 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 03:58 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 21:13 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 04:22 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 21:42 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 22:50 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 21:54 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 23:16 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 22:34 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 06:42 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 12:01 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 08:20 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 09:29 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 08:33 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 09:50 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:30 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 10:54 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 10:02 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 11:30 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 22:24 -0400
              Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 19:35 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 18:46 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:03 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:19 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:30 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 19:33 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 20:42 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 22:16 -0700
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 08:16 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 14:18 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provablY correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 08:25 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 09:30 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 08:48 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 10:12 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 09:33 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 16:36 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 11:00 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 10:22 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 11:34 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 02:05 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:17 -0500
          Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike fails to pay attention) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-15 01:37 +0100
            Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike fails to pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 19:48 -0500
    Re: Olcott lies Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 15:58 -0400
      Re: Olcott lies Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-15 02:05 +0100
    Re: Olcott lies Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-15 02:03 +0100
      Re: Olcott lies Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-15 03:22 +0100
        Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike makes sure to never pay attention) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 21:36 -0500
          Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-15 16:44 +0100
            Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 11:50 -0400
            Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 11:00 -0500
              Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 18:06 +0200
              Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-15 17:13 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 11:19 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Sergi o <invalid@invalid.com> - 2022-10-15 12:14 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 12:28 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Sergi o <invalid@invalid.com> - 2022-10-15 14:06 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 14:11 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Sergi o <invalid@invalid.com> - 2022-10-15 14:53 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 11:50 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 14:19 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 13:28 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 14:46 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 13:57 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 15:04 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 14:13 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 15:27 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 14:31 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 15:47 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) [better wording] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 11:54 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Mike lacks basic ability to reason logically) [better wording] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 17:58 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct [ strawman deception ] olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 12:08 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 00:40 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 07:05 -0400
              Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 14:17 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 13:26 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 14:48 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 14:55 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 14:02 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 15:19 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 14:26 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 15:32 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 14:50 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 16:30 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 15:36 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 22:46 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 15:51 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 21:55 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 16:05 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 23:13 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 16:49 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 23:54 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 17:02 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 18:35 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 17:53 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 20:20 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 19:28 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-16 02:35 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 20:45 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 22:01 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 21:22 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 22:43 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 22:13 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 11:57 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 07:11 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 08:00 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 14:03 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 12:37 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-16 11:51 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 13:00 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 12:21 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 18:33 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 12:34 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-16 19:43 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 14:30 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-16 21:38 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 15:41 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) ++ olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-16 18:23 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) ++ Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 19:29 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) ++ olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 18:34 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) ++ Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 20:53 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) ++ olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-16 20:05 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) ++ Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 21:29 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 13:56 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 11:24 -0700
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 14:14 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 15:29 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 20:31 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 13:47 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 14:53 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 20:39 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 20:49 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 22:05 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 21:17 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 22:50 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 22:11 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-16 11:58 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-16 14:02 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-10-16 07:19 -0600
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 09:39 -0500
                Re: Olcott's business degree Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-16 16:20 +0100
                Re: Olcott's business degree olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 10:26 -0500
                Re: Olcott's business degree Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 13:44 -0400
                Re: Olcott's business degree Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-10-16 12:21 -0600
                Re: Olcott's business degree André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-10-16 10:16 -0600
                Re: Olcott's business degree Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-16 18:22 +0200
                Re: Olcott's business degree olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 11:34 -0500
                Re: Olcott's business degree Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-16 18:58 +0200
                Re: Olcott's business degree André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-10-17 20:50 -0600
                Re: Olcott's business degree Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-18 03:58 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably incorrect (Mike's software engineering skills may be sufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 08:17 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably incorrect (Mike's software engineering skills may be sufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 07:52 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably incorrect (Mike's software engineering skills may be sufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 12:43 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably incorrect (Mike's software engineering skills may be sufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 12:18 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably incorrect (Mike's software engineering skills may be sufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-16 13:46 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-16 13:53 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-16 09:51 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-16 01:36 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 18:48 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 18:33 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 17:15 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 22:56 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 16:42 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 22:49 +0100
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 23:51 +0200
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 16:56 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 16:03 -0700
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 18:36 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 18:03 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 16:06 -0700
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 20:29 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 16:55 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-15 16:02 -0500
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-15 17:18 -0400
                Re: Olcott is provably correct (Mike's software engineering skills may be insufficient) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-15 20:32 +0100
            Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 00:31 -0500
              Re: Olcott is provable correct (Peter lacks basic ability to reason logically) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 07:07 -0400
        Re: Olcott lies Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-16 01:28 +0100
          Re: Olcott proves that he is correct olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-15 20:37 -0500
          Re: Olcott lies Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-10-18 16:17 +0100
            Re: Olcott is proven to be correct to all those paying attention (hardly any) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-18 10:37 -0500
            Re: Olcott lies Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-20 02:44 +0100
              Re: Olcott is provably correct to anyone that pays attention olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-19 20:51 -0500
              Re: Olcott lies Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-19 22:00 -0400
                Re: Olcott is proven to be correct. olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-19 22:58 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-20 10:08 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-20 12:09 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 07:22 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 06:08 -0700
                Re: Turing machines and practical computation Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 14:11 +0000
                Re: Turing machines and practical computation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 17:25 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-20 15:18 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 16:28 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 15:50 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 18:23 -0400
                Re: [still about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 18:07 -0500
                Re: [still about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 20:16 -0400
                Re: [still about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 19:45 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-21 00:40 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 20:26 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-21 23:32 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-21 20:09 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2022-10-21 23:07 -0700
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-22 10:06 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2022-10-22 08:45 -0700
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-22 20:05 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-22 16:13 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-24 17:45 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-24 22:46 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-10-21 18:11 -0600
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-21 21:25 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 09:54 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-20 16:25 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-20 11:05 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 11:09 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-20 18:36 -0400
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-20 20:18 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-21 00:52 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-21 02:08 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-10-20 19:58 -0600
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-20 21:08 -0500
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-22 01:00 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-22 00:32 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-23 20:34 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-24 00:29 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-21 11:12 +0200
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-10-21 13:04 +0100
                Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-25 09:29 -0500
        Re: Olcott lies olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-17 00:24 -0500
          Re: Olcott lies Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-17 07:11 -0400
  Re: Olcott lies Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 13:00 -0700
    Re: Olcott lies Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-14 21:04 +0100
    Re: Olcott lies Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-14 16:33 -0400
      Re: Olcott lies Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 14:17 -0700
        Re: Olcott lies Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 01:15 +0200
          Re: Olcott corrects Python's notation olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 18:20 -0500
            Re: Olcott corrects Python's notation Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 01:22 +0200
          Re: Olcott lies Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 17:04 -0700
            Re: Olcott lies Python <python@invalid.org> - 2022-10-15 02:12 +0200
              Re: Olcott corrects Pythons notations olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-14 19:23 -0500
              Re: Olcott lies Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 20:35 -0700
  Re: Olcott lies Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-10-15 01:44 +0100
    Re: Olcott proves that he is correct olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 20:04 -0500
    Re: Olcott proves that he is correct olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-14 20:27 -0500

csiph-web