Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.theory > #139281
| Subject | Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| References | (25 earlier) <10kjjt2$33o1t$10@dont-email.me> <TUebR.122037$UIC2.19264@fx11.iad> <10kkeef$r0o$2@dont-email.me> <SoEbR.400746$rbZb.321267@fx17.iad> <10knce4$uupn$5@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <B_KbR.933100$H7H.487685@fx13.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2026-01-20 07:59 -0500 |
On 1/20/26 2:55 AM, dart200 wrote: > On 1/19/26 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 1/19/26 12:11 AM, dart200 wrote: >>> On 1/18/26 4:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 1/18/26 4:38 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>> On 1/18/26 12:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 1/18/26 1:24 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/18/26 3:45 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/18/26 1:37 AM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 1/17/26 8:44 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 18/01/2026 00:14, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 1/17/26 5:33 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 17/01/2026 20:31, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> If his RTMs can only be run with an enhanced UTM, then it >>>>>>>>>>>>> isn't really a >>>>>>>>>>>>> new type of machine, and by necessity can't do more than a TM. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> yes, you've got it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's also obvious that many people will consider it as a >>>>>>>>>>>> strategy to a >>>>>>>>>>>> solution and dart200's successful investigation will make it >>>>>>>>>>>> easier to >>>>>>>>>>>> show those people that it isn't. A fact which you haven't got. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a halting problem cannot be constructed when context is >>>>>>>>> accurately passed down the stack of machine calls/simulations >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sure it can. We still have the question of what does a given >>>>>>>> machine + input combination (maybe adding the context that >>>>>>>> machine is run in) do when run. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> you would know if u paid attention >>>>>> >>>>>> Really? Since that is the base question the halting problem is >>>>>> asking, and is being put to your decider. >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess you don't understand what the PROBLEM being asked is. >>>>> >>>>> no you don't understand what the PROBLEM being asked is >>>> >>>> Sure I do, it was stated and defined a century ago. >>>> >>>> You have stated that you want to find a way to resolve the >>>> uncomputability of that problem (as well as problems in general) >>>> >>>> If you can't handle that problem, you have just failed. >>> >>> i can handle the problem, u've just failed to understand what i did >> >> Apparently not, as you think a wrong answer is correct. > > while you apparently are you too stupid to comprehend a simple interface > contract: > > true indicates a positive set classification > false does not indicate a set classification > (to either the set or it's compliment) Which make you system just a partial decider, and thus not solving the AcTUAL problem. Partial decider are well known, so nothing new. Even always halting partial deciders. > >> >> In part, because you don't understand what a compuatation actually is. > > definist fallacy Nope, making YOUR arguement a definist fallacy. The term *IS* defined, and to change it means you lie. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you system doesn't allow you to pass the description of that, >>>>>>>> then you system just admits that it can't solve the problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This question is independent of the contest we are asking the >>>>>>>> question, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a new halting problem arises when a malformed URTM *lies* about >>>>>>>>> the context, i have taken the halting problem and transformed >>>>>>>>> it into a literal "liar's paradox". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, you have shown you don't know what you are talking about. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> sure thing u egotistical fuck >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And that just proves it more. >>>>> >>>>> that i'm correct >>>> >>>> >>>> Nope, just stupid. >>> >>> and yet still more correct >> >> Nope, more stupid. > > and yet still less wrong Nope, just a liar. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> people like dick will just dismiss this as another failed >>>>>>>>> attempt without any curiosity about why this happens or if >>>>>>>>> further refinements can mitigate it, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't lack a curiosity about it, I just won't do work towards >>>>>>>> it as I suspect it it fruitless. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> because u lack curiosity >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, you lack intelegence. >>>>> >>>>> intelligent people are curious. the ct-thesis hasn't been proven. >>>>> obviously the fundamental theory of computing isn't complete enough >>>> >>>> Why do you say that? >>>> >>>> We KNOW that there exist unprovable statements, so it not being >>>> proven isn't fatal to it, >>> >>> i love how godel proved one unprovable statement and now every >>> unproven statement is up for the claim: maybe it's just true but >>> unprovable 🙄🙄🙄??? >> >> Godel opened the eyes that such things exists. It means that it is >> just now illogical to say that they don't exist, and thus we need to >> have a tinge of realism and not assume we can prove everything. > > no the problem is now ur presuming truths you haven't proven, which is > not something that godel did, and is a total bastardization of his work. > > godel demonstrated a *provable* sentence, just not *provable* from > within the set of axioms it was supposedly defined within In other words, you aren't looking at the later papers that shows what I said. Just proving that you are just stupid and make baseless claims. > >> >>> >>> that's *not* what godel did. godel *proved* a claim, that was >>> unprovable only from a particular set of axioms, not unprovable >>> entirely... the claim did still have a proof that existed >> >> Yes, but not just a limited set of axioms, but any set of axioms that >> support the properties of the natural numbers. Which is actually most >> of the system work is done in. >> >> And yes, he showed a statement that was true but unprovable in the >> base system, but was provable in a higher order system. >> >> But there will also be a statement in the base system that this >> particular higher order system can't prove, but that can only be >> proven in an even higher order system. > > great, that doesn't mean u get to presume something is true just because > u've failed to prove it for so long... > > fucking crazy i need to state that Who says I am just presuming something is true. I am summerizing proofs that have been done. Apparently from things you chose to not look at, because you disagree with what the first paper proved, but couldn't find an actual problem in it, so you just try to change the system, an action that just isn't allowed if you want to stay in the system. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> There HAS been a lot of looking into ideas of ways that might let us >>>> move beyond Turing Machines, but nothing has come out of it. >>>> >>>> It seems even Quantum Computing doesn't help, it does wonders to >>>> complexity theory, but doesn't seem to affect computability theory. >>> >>> because quantum computing helps in dealing with certain large >>> possibility spaces ... it doesn't solve self-referential set- >>> classification paradoxes, which is not a problem of complexity or >>> large possibility spaces, it's a problem of a broken system that >>> allows the expression of nonsensical expressions of logic. >> >> THe expression isn't non-sense, it is a very real and legal program. > > i'm sure u also think "this sentence is false" is totally sensible. Nope. > >> >> Yes, it isn't a very useful program, but it shows as a simple, easy to >> understand (for someone with a bit of brains) example that uncomptable >> problems exist. >> >> The fact is, that it turns out that there DO exist a class of >> programs, hard to pin down on exactly what they do, that are just not >> decidable by any know to always be correct partial deciders. The >> "ghost" machines that we have talked about. They do have a couple of >> properties we can deduce. >> >> They must be non-halting, as all halting programs are detectable by >> just running them and waiting long enough. > > actually just cause one interface can identify all halting programs ... > doesn't mean that other interfaces can identify all halting programs, > because paradoxes are constructed in regards to specific interfaces, or > input/output contracts, not knowledge of a fact in general > > not that you have *any* idea what the fuck i just said, that would > require listening with more brain cells than u respond with. Since we are not talking about "interfaces", at least not if you intend to be talking about "computations", your statement is clearly a category error. > >> >> They must continue to grow in space over time, otherwise they will hit >> a repeated state, which allows them to be correctly determined to be >> non- halting. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It seems that YOU are the one that refuses to do the work to >>>>>>>> push your idea forward, perhaps because you are too ignorant of >>>>>>>> the methods needed, and are stuck on your incorrect ideas. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> just continually projecting a 🤡🌎 fate that contraindicates >>>>>>>>> general deciders that can prove our real world programs correct >>>>>>>>> or not, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nothing about the Halting Problem says anything about making a >>>>>>>> decider that can often give you information about real world >>>>>>>> programs. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is a common flaw held by stupid programmers. Undecidability >>>>>>>> doesn't mean we can never get an answer, just that we can't >>>>>>>> always get an answer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> this is a common flaw held by even stupider usenet posters: when >>>>>>> get the theory wrong, we fuck our pragmatic ability to operate on >>>>>>> that theory, and that's where we are today: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> no one proving anything about their programs cause ungodly >>>>>>> retards like urself fucked us all up the ass so hard we're >>>>>>> bleeding irrationality all over the place ... >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure they are. Most optimizations are based on this sort of >>>>>> theory, and those are getting better and better under real >>>>>> programmers. >>>>> >>>>> let me know when ur engineers are using semantic analysis to assure >>>>> their programs always semantically correctly >>>>> >>>>> i'll wait ... ☠️ ... >>>> >>>> Are you willing to pay the cost and the resource penalty? >>>> >>>> There are safety-certification procedures designed to maximize the >>>> ability to verify correctness. >>> >>> these semantic proofs really should be basic tool chain features that >>> everyone uses, not something that requires extra certifications. >> >> The problem is they greatly limit what you can do in your programming, >> as you need to keep the semantics clear, > > lol, u work for a private military contractor. i have no doubt ur code > base is absolutely ungodly cause even gold standard open source is still > pretty damn ungodly for what it does. > > alan kay has a *great* lecture on this, not that you'll watch it: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubaX1Smg6pY Which doesn't change the truth of my statement. Code isn't normally proven, as to do so makes the cost much higher, higher than people, even the government, is willing to pay. > >> >> They also run less efficiently, as you can't use some techniques that >> are ore efficient, as they are not as provable. > > yeah that's why i'm trying to address the provability part In other words, you are repeating the century old error of resoluting going down a path shown to be impossible. The key isn't to make EVERYTHING provable, but to improve the domain of WHAT is provable. If the cost of making correctness provable goes down, it is more apt to be done. > >> >>> >>> but none of the hardcore language guys build those things cause "muh >>> halting problem" >> >> But there HAVE been languages based on being easier to prove >> correctness, but they haven't been used much because the market isn't >> willing to pay the cost to use them. (Not cost to by the tools, but >> cost in programmer time and hardware needed) > > the market pays 3+ orders of magnitude more for it's code over the base > complexity it really describes. this isn't an economic-cost problem, > it's a philosophical one. No, the market pays no more for code than the benefit it generates. > > i won't listen to any economic arguments cause the economics of the > software industry is absolute batshit 🤡🌎 insanity beyond anything > remotely approaching reason > > i'm sure ur liberal sheep entirely slave to accepting all free market > outcomes as "wow much rationality" Ignoring reality means it will just bite you in the end. > >> >>> >>> the closest i've heard of is that one langauge which will tell u if >>> ur function is primitively recursive and therefore total, but as soon >>> as u do any unbounded recursion ur back to whatever the fuck qa >>> normal software eng does. >>> >>>> >>>> Yes, the fact that some things are non-computable means that some >>>> things can't be formally proven correct, especially when you need to >>>> deal with non-computation effects like hardware failures. >>> >>> yeah yeah yeah, i'm interested in resolving the problem of software >>> defects. software defects shouldn't exist, but there are still real >>> world computing constraints like hardware failures and random >>> bitflips or whatever. >> >> THen why are you focused on the halting problem, and trying to invent >> a different definition of computing that either will match what >> computers to even less, or tell you even less about what the program >> will do. >> >> "Proven" software is expensive, More expensive than most of the market >> will pay. >> >>> >>>> >>>> Maybe your problem is you don't understand how real software >>>> engineering works. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess you are just stuck on the stupid table. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is only the dumb ones, like you, that seem to have the problem, >>>>>> and that is probably for the better, because is seems that your >>>>>> camp wants to change the problem, and not work on making programs >>>>>> actually run correctly, but make a test they can pass, even if >>>>>> they are wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> that contraindicates us even generally agreeing on refined/ >>>>>>>>> perfected paradigms we can just use universally, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, you only think it does, because you don't understand what >>>>>>>> you are talking about. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> no you don't understand what ur talking about >>>>>> >>>>>> Since you have shown you don't know want a computation is, the >>>>>> world can see who is the stupid one. >>>>> >>>>> and you've shown that you don't know what a computation can be >>>> >>>> Since is it a pre-defined word, of course I do. >>>> >>>> If you want to make a new system, which you haven't done yet, yes, >>>> you can try to expand it, but as I said, you WILL need to show the >>>> effects of those changes of definition, and the usefulness of the >>>> new definition. >>>> >>>> Since you are in your right to try to define computation as taking a >>>> shit, even if that has no relation to the previous one, of course I >>>> can't know everything you might imagine. >>>> >>>> That is why if you want to go off into a new definition, you need to >>>> get down to actually trying to define it and work out the details. >>>> Broad outlines that you try to make look like it is still the >>>> existing doesn't work. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> instead of this ungodly industry that has ran wild with >>>>>>>>> reinventing the wheel over and over again to the point that >>>>>>>>> 99.9% of the industry has devolved into bullshit, actually >>>>>>>>> economically detrimental work... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> yes i know a lotta people keep making a lotta money doing >>>>>>>>> cognitively intense work, but the crazy thing about computing >>>>>>>>> is we can make computing as complicated as we can economically >>>>>>>>> bear, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> consumers are far too removed from the incredibly complexity >>>>>>>>> we're dealing with so there's little hope for the market to >>>>>>>>> correct, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> producers are too busy rolling in cash to give up on their cash >>>>>>>>> cows, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and govts are still dithering about unable to agree on >>>>>>>>> resolutions to 20th century problems to ever get about to 21st >>>>>>>>> century ones >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, if you are so passionate about this, DO SOMETHING, and not >>>>>>>> just make general unsupportable claims, but work out the details. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> why don't you do something instead on of generally making >>>>>>> unsupported claims? >>>>>> >>>>>> Because I don't make such claims, you are. >>>>>> >>>>>> I make working system, based on solid design principles. >>>>> >>>>> wow that was a generalm unsupported claim, care to make more? >>>> >>>> I'm sorry, but if I told you too much, I would have to shoot you. >>> >>> not a 1A fan, eh??? >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I also, in my spare time, try to educate idiots on usenet. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course, since you want to change the foundation, that means >>>>>>>> building a whole new system and then showing it is usable for >>>>>>>> something so people will try to use your system. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> of course since u don't want to change anything, u can't do anything >>>>>> >>>>>> I am willing to change foundations, *IF* someone does the work to >>>>>> show they are better, >>>>> >>>>> yeah... so if someone with more academic credibility than you u >>>>> tells u too, fucking sheeple >>>> >>>> I guess you are just admitting that you don't have academic >>>> credibility, >>> >>> haven't i already said that? >> >> Then why should anyone listen to you. > > thinly veiled origin fallacy: > attack the argument not the person who said it > > the fact i even need to remind u of that is kinda 🤮 bro It is an unfortunate fact of life. If you want to create a "disruptive" technology in software development, you will need to get the players in the market to look at you. Once you earn the lable of a crank, you won't be able to do that. > >> >> If you don't intend on building academic credibility, what difference >> does it make what you do. > > the worlds actually needs someone to blindside academia at this point... > > profiteering and greed have infiltrated most of our institutions to the > point of a rather general incompetency that won't be able to address > 21st century problems But making a fool of yourself so those that you want to try to use what you develop doesn't help you plan. It isn't what the ivory towers think, it is the people in the trenches think, and if your history show stupidity, they won't give you a try. > >> >>> >>>> and thus really need to actually get to work proving your ideas >>>> rather than just pissing off complaining that people aren't helping >>>> you. >>> >>> very few of the greats worked in vacuum... >> >> In part because they didn't complain about people trying to help them. > > i wonder how many fallacies they had to continually point out in the > people "trying to help them" The key is they could dig down to the fundamentals to show where the error was. You can't do that, as it seems you don't KNOW what your fundamentals are. They would listen to the critisisms and refine the errors in their initial work. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> IF you don't have the skills to do that, it would be foolish to >>>>>>>> spend you life building trash. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> i would be even more foolish to spend ur life posting trash like you >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you think truth is trash, you have more problems with the world. >>>>> >>>>> i just think ur trash >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is your right, but it just makes you wrong, and shows your >>>> stupidity. >>> >>> no u >>> >> > >
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Proof that the halting problem itself is a category error Oleksiy Gapotchenko <alex.s.gap@gmail.com> - 2026-01-06 01:24 +0100
Re: Proof that the halting problem itself is a category error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-05 18:39 -0600
is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-05 23:47 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-06 19:26 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-06 19:03 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-06 22:33 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-07 00:56 -0800
yes/no questions lacking a correct yes/no answer are incorrect questions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-07 05:50 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-12 07:12 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-12 07:06 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-12 14:09 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-12 22:16 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-12 20:21 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-13 07:09 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-13 12:33 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2026-01-14 02:41 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-13 19:38 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-14 22:43 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-15 04:23 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-15 22:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-16 01:08 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-16 11:46 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-16 14:21 -0800
The essence of all Computation generically defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-16 16:58 -0600
Re: The essence of all Computation generically defined Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-16 18:21 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-16 18:21 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-16 16:43 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-16 22:24 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-16 23:23 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 07:33 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-17 18:22 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 15:31 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-17 22:33 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 19:14 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 17:24 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 20:35 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 04:44 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 22:37 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 06:45 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 10:24 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 15:55 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 13:38 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 19:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 21:11 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 00:29 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-19 23:55 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 07:59 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-20 18:30 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-23 20:36 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 00:03 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 07:17 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 08:45 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 12:26 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 10:33 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 14:52 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 12:56 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 17:25 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 14:31 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 19:52 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 18:10 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 13:20 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:05 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 16:14 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:28 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 15:50 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 21:48 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 13:59 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-27 18:31 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-28 07:34 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-28 10:33 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-02-01 07:33 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-02 10:11 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-02 18:44 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-02 23:53 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-03 07:20 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-03 11:33 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-03 21:33 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-04 07:30 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-04 21:29 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-04 18:41 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-05 07:13 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-05 10:05 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-05 19:40 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-05 18:47 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-06 09:50 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-06 10:23 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-06 18:18 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-02-06 16:17 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-02-06 19:26 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 01:59 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 11:17 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 13:42 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 14:20 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-25 13:04 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:09 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-25 13:10 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:11 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 12:43 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-28 13:16 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 13:26 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-28 13:44 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-02-01 07:33 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 06:37 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 16:42 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 20:17 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 18:40 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 22:29 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 22:12 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 07:03 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 15:08 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 12:55 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 10:44 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 15:56 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 23:09 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 00:29 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-19 22:46 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 07:59 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-20 17:36 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-23 20:52 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 14:29 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 19:52 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 19:30 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 13:20 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:08 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 17:24 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 20:01 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 11:21 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 11:43 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 19:14 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 22:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 22:05 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 07:05 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 10:15 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 15:56 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 13:50 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 22:27 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 15:01 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 19:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 20:30 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 00:29 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 22:28 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 19:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 20:51 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 00:29 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-19 22:18 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-20 07:59 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-20 17:55 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-21 20:07 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 09:44 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 14:36 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 19:52 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 18:24 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 13:21 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:05 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 17:36 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 21:56 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 11:39 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 11:43 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 17:17 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 14:29 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Dude <punditster@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 13:31 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-28 01:12 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Dude <punditster@gmail.com> - 2026-01-28 13:29 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-28 13:37 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-01-27 14:07 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-28 07:23 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-21 19:57 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 22:21 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-17 12:17 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 08:15 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-17 18:27 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 15:31 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 09:47 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 15:31 -0500
The essence of all Computation generically defined olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-16 18:35 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2026-01-17 01:28 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 10:52 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-17 22:45 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 17:20 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 20:30 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 18:23 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-17 22:47 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 00:28 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 07:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 10:10 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-18 15:56 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-18 14:55 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 11:03 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 10:59 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2026-01-18 02:49 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-17 19:15 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-18 11:12 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2026-01-20 00:50 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2026-01-21 20:10 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2026-01-23 01:40 +0000
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-07 14:05 +0200
is the ct-thesis cooked, really? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-07 12:20 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked, really? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-08 12:11 +0200
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked, really? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-10 11:04 -0800
Exactly what are deciders in the theory of computation? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-07 15:29 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 17:06 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-24 19:52 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 18:05 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 13:23 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 13:04 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-25 17:40 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-25 22:50 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 01:35 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 11:43 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-26 11:45 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-26 17:28 -0500
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-27 00:00 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 20:35 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 18:38 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 20:53 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 19:12 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 21:42 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 20:03 -0800
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-24 22:06 -0600
Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? PLO dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-01-24 21:45 -0800
Re: Proof that the halting problem itself is a category error Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-06 15:23 +0200
Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-06 08:02 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-07 14:10 +0200
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-07 07:06 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-08 12:21 +0200
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-08 08:18 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-10 11:25 +0200
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-10 10:19 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-10 18:19 -0500
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-10 18:16 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2026-01-10 19:35 -0500
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2026-01-10 19:59 -0600
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2026-01-11 07:28 -0500
Re: Boiling Gödel's 1931 Incompleteness proof down to its barest essence Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-01-11 12:34 +0200
csiph-web