Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Groups > comp.theory > #139210
| Subject | Re: is the ct-thesis cooked? |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| References | (22 earlier) <10khcg7$2nl2r$5@dont-email.me> <iJWaR.3771$Al3.3669@fx20.iad> <10khg6m$2nl2r$7@dont-email.me> <xJYaR.41029$WtCb.20242@fx42.iad> <10ki5ka$33o1t$5@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <Vl4bR.175769$rbZb.20301@fx17.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2026-01-18 07:28 -0500 |
On 1/18/26 3:28 AM, dart200 wrote:
> On 1/17/26 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 1/17/26 9:23 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 1/17/26 5:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 1/17/26 8:20 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 1/17/26 2:45 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/01/2026 18:52, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>> 2) is demonstrating some fact that is generally computable from
>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>> perspective
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean judgible?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do humans get it right or do they just say easy mad hushnow whenever
>>>>>> they get the chance?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> the idea would be to develop and present a clear algorithm than any
>>>>> human can use to refactor a paradoxical program into a simpler,
>>>>> functionally-equivalent, but non-paradoxical form that is therefore
>>>>> decidable by any maximal partial decider.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that Humans don't meet the basic requirement for
>>>> computation, of being deterministic.
>>>
>>> a human correctly running turing machine description is just as
>>> deterministic as a machine correctly running that description.
>>>
>>> except human work isn't subject to being read and contradicted by
>>> turing machines ...
>>
>> Sure they are, as it isn't the machine that is being contradicted, it
>> is the algorithm the machine is running.
>>
>> WIth Turing Machines, they are one and the same as the Turing Machine
>> is a direct imbodyment of the algorithm. But give that algorithm to a
>
> only if the ct-thesis is true, which u haven't proven
That doesn't make sense.
The statement is that the proof of Halting being uncomputable can be
stated in terms of just the "algorithm" independent of the mechanizm the
system uses to perform it, assume just that the system is at least as
powerful as a Turing Machine. Being more powerful means it can compute
any algorithm specifiable to a Turing machine.
I Point out that for a Turing Machine, the algorithm ends up being
directly embodied in the computation machine, but this detail doesn't
need to be assumed in the proof.
>
>> person who is mechanically following it, means the contradiction just
>> need to use its own copy of that algorithm and then act contrary to it.
>>
>> Eitehr your human is being deterministic, and thus exactly following
>> the algorithm, and can be countered, or they are not and thus no a
>> computation architecture.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And if they are being deterministic, then the "paradox" still works,
>>>> as they will come up with an answer, (which can't change) and then
>>>> the input will do the opposite.
>>>>
>>>> And, how can a paradoxical program be functionally equivalent to a
>>>> non- paradoxical one? That doesn't seem to match the definition of
>>>> equivalent.
>>>
>>> i literally demonstrated that with the ghost detector posts. maybe if
>>> u'd paid attention instead of just picked at points while ignoring
>>> the overall context...
>>
>> Nope, you hand waved claims that you could do something,
>>
>> Not showed how you could actually do it,
>
> u never asked any questions the would allow me to explain further as if
> u were confused by anything ... u just continually posted at various
> things u thot were wrong, literally never anything correct.
>
> i honestly doubt u even looked at the code, which is more important than
> anything else i wrote.
I guess you are just too stupid to understand the critiques I was giving
you. Part of your problem is you keep on writing abstract functions that
you claim will do something that can't be done.
When writing an algorithm, you don't get to just assume a task can be
done. You can refer to a previously developed algorithm, not to one that
hasn't be defined in algorithm terms (in other words, you need to show
HOW not just the results it gets)
>
>>
>> You seem to have the same fault as Olcott in thinking you are allowed
>> to presume something that isn't true, and act like it is.
>>
>> That is just a lie.
>>
>>>
>>> the paradox only affects decidability, and only from a fixed set of
>>> points... it's doesn't produce a unique input->output mapping. there
>>> is always a simpler machine that compute the same input->output
>>> mapping without a paradox involved.
>>
>> You seem to have a problem with your definition.
>>
>> There isn't ONE paradox input.
>>
>> There is a paradox input built for each decider.
>>
>> Each of them has a determinative input->output mapping.
>>
>> It doesn't matter if there is a simpler machine that gives the same
>> result, as that decider it was built on still makes an error on this one.
>
> this isn't what i'm talking about
>
> machineA is a machine that computes some input->output mapping, and has
> no paradox involved, lets say the successor function:
>
> machineA = (x) -> x + 1
>
> machineB is a machine that computes the *same* input->output mapping of
> machineA, but at the beginning it paradoxically asks gd_haltsA if it
> halts on that input:
>
> machineB = (x) -> {
> if ( gd_haltsA(machineB, x) == HALTS )
> loop()
> else
> return x + 1
> }
Which are NOT computationally equivalent, unless gd_haltsA(machineB, x)
doesn't returns HALTS.
"Not halting" *IS* a mapping.
>
> why is this equivalent? clearly gd_haltsA(machineB, x) cannot return
> HALTS or LOOPS because neither would be correct, so it will return
> REDUCIBLE or UNREDUCIBLE, causing the else branch to run making this
> obviously a successor function. more specifically it will return
> REDUCIBLE since refactoring out the paradox is possible by injecting the
> value of gd_haltsA(machineB, x):
>
So, you are defining that a precondition on your gd_haltsA(machineB, x)
does not return HALTS, but "Reducable" which is NOT a correct answer to
the halting question.
> machineB_reduced = (x) -> {
> if ( REDUCIBLE == HALTS )
> loop()
> else
> return x + 1
> }
>
> heck we can construct this to be even more obviously functionally
> equivalent to machineA by calling it directly:
>
> machineC = (x) -> {
> if ( gd_haltsA(machineC, x) == HALTS )
> loop()
> else
> return machineA(x)
> }
>
> ultimately a major thesis i'm now playing around with is the notion that
> no paradoxical machine computes any input->output mapping that cannot be
> computed by some *simpler* machine involving no paradox.
But, that is incorrect for any machine gd_haltsA(y, x) that can return
HALTS for a given machine y that is of a paradoxical equivalenet form.
>
> which if true would mean turing completeness can be obtained by a set of
> machines containing no paradox! BIG if true...
But, you first need to prove that you can do that, and that requires you
to assume other non-computable results are computable.
>
>>
>>>
>>> we can actually just ignore the existence of paradoxes without losing
>>> anything in regards to computability.
>>
>> And the problem is the "ghosts" are not necessarily members of that
>> set of paradox machines, in fact, unless the decider fails by not
>> answering, they can't be.
>>
>> The ghost machines are machines that grow with unbounded space (so
>> never hit a repeat state) and no pattern exists in this growing state
>> to identify that it won't ever stop growing.
>>
>>>
>>> which is kinda funny tbh considering that it's gone on this long as
>>> some great limit to computability ...
>>
>> In other words you think by ignoring machines that you can't detect
>> you can solve a problem.
>
> go back and read the ghost detector posts again
>
> also, did u notice how i can produce a paradox in regards to a *halting*
> machine??? i'm sure that's gunna fucking trigger you some how, but ur
> forgetting the paradoxes are built in regards to the specific interface
> (input/ouput contract) of the classifier ... so actually halting
> machines can be paradoxes!
The problem is you are confusing the ghost machines with the paradox
machines.
The paradox machines are defined in a way that for ANY machine you care
to create, we can create its paradox machine, that it will get wrong.
These machines have definite behavior, which will just be the opposite
of what "their" decider says about them.
The ghost machines are machines that no always-correct partial decider
can decide on.
>
> the fact we can effectively enumerate all halting machines via a halting
> recognizer, is independent of the fact we can produce input paradoxical
> to other classifier specifications (in the case a halting ghost
> detector) that halt.
No, you ASSUME you can. The problem is your enumeration doesn't take
countable steps, but hits the k^N barrier. We can not effecitvely
enumerate the reals, and you need to do the equivalent of that to do
your operation.
>
> the fact we can enumerate out halting machines does not bar us from
> producing paradoxes with halting machines. let that fact sink in for a
> second before you again type up angrily why i still am certainly wrong
> about everything always... 😤
But we can only enumerate the halting machines, not effectively
enumerate them.
>
>>
>> All it shows is you poor thinking process.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> this algo cannot be implemented generally in TMs thru a single
>>>>> interface because muh pathological input ...
>>>>
>>>> because it isn't actually computational.
>>>>
>>>> You seem to confuse interface for computations.
>>>
>>> and u have no proof that the ct-thesis is a law
>>
>> No, I accept it as likely true, but don't need for it to be law.
>>
>> After all, as I have pointed out, the contrary proof for the halting
>> problem doesn't need to be based on them being Turing Machines, just
>> doing computations in a system at least as powerful as Turing
>> Machines, so composition works.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> but imo that's flaw that demonstrates that the ct-thesis isn't
>>>>> true ...
>>>>>
>>>>> actually entire concept of undecidability within computing hinges
>>>>> on assuming that the ct-thesis is a law. we use TMs to construct a
>>>>> contradiction, and then assume that implies a total limitation to
>>>>> all computing because obviously the ct-thesis is true and TMs can
>>>>> compute everything that's computable, right???
>>>>
>>>> No. While the proof of undecidability is written based on Turing
>>>> Machines, it can also be rephrased on general computations if you
>>>> assume the system provides the basic requirements to be at least as
>>>> powerful as a Turing machine.
>>>
>>> if u haven't proven that specifically defined TMs compute everything
>>> that is computable, then idk why in the fuck u think some vague
>>> generalization covers everything that is comptuable...
>>
>> Because we have a definition of what a computation is, and thus what
>> it means to not be computable.
>
> i'm only interested in the turing machine definition because saying the
> same thing in a different fucking syntax doesn't make more fucking true
> bro
Choose your position. Are your machines just Turing Machines equivalent,
or are they more powerful.
Syntax can't create ability that wasn't there.
>
>>
>> If you want to try to change the definition of a computation, go ahead
>> and try, but then you need to show that your definition is usable for
>> something.
>
> i've been doing that but u've been just picking at details instead of
> even trying to look at the overall picture
Because your errors are in the details that you refuse to look at.
>
> or at least ... i do think some small part of ur mind has been kinda
> paying attention overall, it's just totally and complete out-gunned by
> the all the parts getting triggered by me just ignoring assumptions that
> have been held onto by almost everyone in the field for almost a century
>
> sorry i just dgaf. my deep frustration at the state of the industry and
> how fucking ungodly useless it is compared to what it should be, will
> fuel me farther than the bandwagon ur clinging to with ever sentence you
> write...
And refusal to look at the details of what you talk about, but just
foolishly assuming what you want, just dooms your work to be a fallacy.
>
>>
>> While modern computures don't neccessarily do computations when looking
>
> i have no idea how in the fuck u sit there with a straight face and
> suggest computing doesn't conforming to the fundamentals of computing,
> while also claiming the ct-thesis is certainly true (without proof)
I guess you are just too stupid to know what the words you speak mean.
>
>> at sub-parts of their operation, they do largely conform to it at the
>> full level. After all, you just need to include the hidden state as
>> part of the input, and deal with the fact that your sub-operations are
>> not fully controllable since you can't directly set some of the input.
>
> except you have *total* control of the *entire* context that is setup
> before any given machine call bro...
No you don't, as a computation can't control the context it is used in,
and thus, since that context is what goes down, is a part of the input
that can't be controlled.
>
> **you just can't fucking lie about it**
It seems you can though.
>
>>
>> The fact that you show you don't understand what a computation
>> actually is, make is doubtful that you can redefine the system with a
>> different defintion and then show what that system can do.
>
> there's a difference between not understanding and not accepting,
>
> so again: quit the fucking gaslighting dude
It seems you are the one that has been gaslighted.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> or maybe the proof of the ct-thesis being false has been sitting
>>>>> right under our noses since turing declared undecidability on the
>>>>> very first paper /on computable numbers/ ... 🤷🤷🤷
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not to surprising, since a large part of the invention of the field
>>>> was to answer questions about being able to compute certain things
>>>> as a way to handle logical difficulties. Prior to this point, it was
>>>> hoped that the idea of programs might be able to provide a framework
>>>> to answer some of the big questions in mathematics and logic.
>>>
>>>
>>
>
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