Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Olcott lies |
| Date | 2022-10-15 01:44 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <8735bpq5jh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | <tic5tr$25uem$6@dont-email.me> |
Python <python@invalid.org> writes: Olcott (annotated): > If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H > correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running > > [comment: as D halts, the simulation is faulty, Pr. Sipser has been > fooled by Olcott shell game confusion "pretending to simulate" and > "correctly simulate"] > > unless aborted then H can abort its simulation of D and correctly > report that D specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are. (I've gone back to his previous names what P is Linz's H^.) > In other words: "if the simulation were right the answer would be > right". I don't think that's the right paraphrase. He is saying if P were different (built from a non-aborting H) H's answer would be the right one. > But the simulation is not right. D actually halts. But H determines (correctly) that D would not halt if it were not halted. That much is a truism. What's wrong is to pronounce that answer as being correct for the D that does, in fact, stop. > And Peter Olcott is a [*beep*] It's certainly dishonest to claim support from an expert who clearly does not agree with the conclusions. Pestering, and then tricking, someone into agreeing to some vague hypothetical is not how academic research is done. Had PO come clean and ended his magic paragraph with "and therefore 'does not 'halt' is the correct answer even though D halts" he would have got a more useful reply. Let's keep in mind this is exactly what he's saying: "Yes [H(P,P) == false] is the correct answer even though P(P) halts." Why? Because: "we can prove that Halts() did make the correct halting decision when we comment out the part of Halts() that makes this decision and H_Hat() remains in infinite recursion" -- Ben.
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
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 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: 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