Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Olcott lies |
| Date | 2022-10-16 01:28 +0100 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <878rlgobmt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> (permalink) |
| References | <tic5tr$25uem$6@dont-email.me> <YROdnTHfPKveJ9T-nZ2dnZfqn_GdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> <87pmetoq2s.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <lkCdnSYPxan6hNf-nZ2dnZfqn_ph4p2d@brightview.co.uk> |
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
> On 15/10/2022 02:03, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 14/10/2022 18:23, Python wrote:
>>>> Professor Sipser has agreed that this is the correct criteria:
>>>> 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.
>>>> In other words: "if the simulation were right the answer would be
>>>> right".
>>>> But the simulation is not right. D actually halts.
>>>> And Peter Olcott is f*g disgusting liar.
>>>
>>> [tldr; perhaps think "idiot" rather than "liar"?]
>> <cut>
>>> It's all reflected in this thread - as you say, Sipser is simply
>>> agreeing to a tautology THAT NOBODY HERE HAS EVER DISAGREED WITH as
>>> far as I can recall
>>
>> Well I disagree with it, and I don't think it's a tautology. It's a bit
>> vague and deceptive, but anyone following the history should know that
>> he's saying that H's incorrect answer is really correct because a
>> /different/ computation /does/ halt. It's just the latest iteration of
>> "it's right because of what would happen if line 15 were commented out"
>> and any agreement with it will bolster PO's delusion that he is on to
>> something.
>
> Yes, I know all that. I think possibly you've misread what I was
> saying or the larger context, or I didn't say clearly enough what I
> meant. Let's see...
>
> Overall, I wasn't talking about anything PO says, rather purely about
> what Sipser agreed with.
OK, but I think (if replying to PO) we /should/ be talking about what PO
writes.
> [What Sipser agreed, copied from above]
>>>> 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.
>
> To my mind, *Sipser* is agreeing that *IF* H simulates D until H
> *CORRECTLY* determines that the simultion of D would never terminate,
> then H reporting "not halting" is the correct result for a halt
> decider.
I know (from his email) that he was agreeing to what seemed like an
innocuous truth.
But that's how the trickery works. Make it look like a trivial remark
and hope that no one notices that the reader is being asked to confirm
that the answer can be determined why what /would/ happen rather than
what /does/ happen.
The thing is, Sipser's book discusses halting partly in terms of
simulation. He shows that A_TM[1] is Turing-recognizable with the simple
simulation argument. He then remarks that if the TM had a way to
determine that M was not halting it would be a decider.
Part of Sipser's reported reply was, I think, something like "Thanks for
checking" so I would hazard a guess that PO presented his nonsense in
such a way that it just looked like a request to confirm that remark
from the book.
> I believe D is just being considered as an input that the
> simulating halt decider is examining, and nothing more... (not as a
> specific input, although it's logically still ok even if D is the
> "paradoxical" input, since then the IF clause will never be true, but
> I can't think that's what Sipser would be thinking.)
But I am not so sure about this part. Sipser uses the name D for the TM
constructed from H and PO changed his terms so that D would be
recognisable. I have no idea whether Sipser took the name D to be
generic or to be his construction, but /we/ know what PO meant. We know
what PO was hoping to get apparent agreement about.
> Well, given H simulates correctly, and CORRECTLY determines D would
> never stop running, what's to disagree with?
We should disagree with what he wrote, and not agree with what we
suppose someone else thought he meant!
What he wrote was /not/ this simple truism. What he wrote encapsulates
more than four years of tossing the word salad to find as innocuous a
way as possible to say that he's redefined what "non halting" means. It
is the very heart of what PO is trying to get away with.
I don't think anyone should be saying "that's just a tautology" or "or
course we all agree with this". (BTW, I know that's not what you said).
The trouble is that saying, as I take you to have said, "we all agree
with what reasonable people might assume you meant" is not really very
helpful.
> Would you agree with this expanded description of what I think Sipser
> agreed with perhaps?
Of course. In fact I know it to be the case from his email to me.
But we should take every opportunity to object to this now oft-quoted
"criterion" because we know what "correctly determines that its
simulated D would never stop running unless aborted" really means. It
means that "H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
[is non-halting]". That "would" and "unless" and "can" are crucial, as
is the fact that D is the name of the confounding TM, built from H.
> Nobody is suggesting Sipser said anything supporting PO's position!
Well, I think PO is suggesting exactly that. Why else would he care
what some professor says?
> I'd stand by my remark that nobody here would disagree with my
> interpretation of what Sipser agreed to. So it's added nothing to the
> debate, although it's confused PO probably.
Sure, but PO cares about what the words he wrote meant in the context of
his 18 wasted years. He cares that someone appears to agree with a
criterion that includes
"every element of the conventional halting problem set of non-halting
computations and a few more."
> Secondary question, probably irrelevant due to larger
> misunderstandings:
>
> Is it a /tautology/ that "H CORRECTLY determining that D's simulation
> will never halt means that the correct response (for a halt decider)
> is NOTHALT" ? Talking non-technically, I would call that a tautology,
> because with a little rephrasing it's saying nothing more than "if D's
> simulation never halts then D never halts", which doesn't seem worth
> saying.
I have used the term "truism" because I think that is close enough
without getting into the technical definitions.
> OK, it's not technically a tautology, because D's simulation not
> halting is not the same proposition as D not halting - the meanings
> are different; but everyone knows without further comment that D's
> simulation tracks the D computation and so either they both halt or
> they both fail to halt. That's essentially contained in the word
> "simulation".
>
> If that's all you meant by "I don't think it's a tautology" I'd agree,
> but I'm confident we diverged at a much higher level than this. :)
Absolutely it's more than that: the main divergence seems to be that you
are talking about what someone reasonable might have taken PO to mean
where I am talking about PO actually wrote.
Do you agree that the actual words, as best we can understand them given
PO's lack of technical writing skills, re-defines non-halting so H can
report "non-halting" for a halting computation due to what would happen
if H did not do what it actually does?
>> (As it happens, PO is so bad at writing that he has in fact paraphrased
>> his own words as a simply tautology, but the version in question has the
>> clear "would" ... "unless" giveaway phrase.)
>
> Right, but Sipser doesn't have a clue about any of that - I'm sure he
> is just agreeing to the obvious (almost) tautological interpretation
> of the paragraph.
Well, anyone reading the words has the clues that are in the words. If
I had seen the paragraph out of the blue, I would not assume it was
saying what you think reasonable readers might think it was saying.
That's because the truism is so much simpler to state. When someone
adds words that suggest hypotheticals and talks about what an algorithm
"can do" in such hypothetical cases, I get very suspicious. But then
I've been reading Usenet cranks for the last few years while the good
Professor has been teaching classes of bright students. He has no
reason to be suspicious.
My own TL;DR...
My point was that people /here/ should not act as if PO meant some bland
truism. They should read what he actually wrote and critique that,
because that is what PO will claim has been agreed to: the claim about a
D constructed from H, but where H's decision is be based on what would
happen if H did not do what it actually does. His words encapsulate
exactly the ruse he is trying to pull.
[1] A_TM = { <M.w> | M is a TM and M accepts w }
--
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 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: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-26 06:06 +0200
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-26 10:32 -0500
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-27 08:20 +0200
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-27 11:16 -0500
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-27 18:46 +0200
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-27 12:06 -0500
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2022-10-27 20:45 +0200
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-27 13:56 -0500
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-27 18:27 -0400
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-27 17:53 -0500
Re: [No longer about] Olcott [High level TM generators] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2022-10-27 19:27 -0400
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