Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #85262
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c, comp.lang.c++ |
| Subject | Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) |
| Message-ID | <20220715192306.00003910@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (15 earlier) <2KidnQBTRtnJO0z_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <20220715184619.00003607@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <KbSdncHSDus_N0z_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <20220715190440.00001376@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <qLGdnfQQtoHfMkz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corporation |
| Date | 2022-07-15 19:23 +0100 |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 13:17:37 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/15/2022 1:04 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 12:57:53 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/15/2022 12:46 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 12:39:31 -0500
> >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 7/15/2022 12:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 18:08:22 +0100
> >>>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 12:00:59 -0500
> >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 7/15/2022 11:03 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 10:58:14 -0500
> >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2022 10:49 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 10:07:36 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2022 9:32 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 09:19:59 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2022 7:06 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 01:46:23 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/15/2022 1:23 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 17:41:06 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2022 5:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 16:02:35 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2022 3:22 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 15:02:21 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 7/14/2022 2:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2022 14:19:38 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is an explanation of a key new insight
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into the halting problem provided in the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> language of software engineering. Technical
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer science terms are explained using
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> software engineering terms. No knowledge of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halting problem is required.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is based on fully operational software
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed in the x86utm operating system. The
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x86utm operating system (based on an excellent
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> open source x86 emulator) was created to study
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the details of the halting problem proof
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> counter-examples at the much higher level of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> abstraction of C/x86.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int H(ptr p, ptr i); // simulating halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void P(ptr x)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P)); }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When simulating halt decider H(P,P) simulates
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its input we can see that: (1) Function H() is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> called from P(). (2) With the same arguments
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H(). (3) With no instructions in P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> preceding its invocation of H(P,P).
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above shows that the simulated P cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly terminate normally. Because H can see
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same (1)(2)(3) that we see H aborts its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of P and rejects P as non-halting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is the problem of determining,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a description of an arbitrary computer
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program and an input, whether the program will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finish running, or continue to run forever.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan Turing proved in 1936 that a general
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> algorithm to solve the halting problem for
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all possible program- input pairs cannot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exist.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For any program H that might
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine if programs halt, a "pathological"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program P, called with some input, can pass
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own source and its input to H and then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifically do the opposite of what H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> predicts P will do. No H can exist that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> handles this case.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H and P implement the exact pathological
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> relationship to each other as described above.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Because H(P,P) does handle this case the above
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem undecidable input template has
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> been refuted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *When this halt deciding principle understood
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be correct* A halt decider must compute the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mapping from its inputs to an accept or reject
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state on the basis of the actual behavior that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is actually specified by these inputs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Then (by logical necessity) this implements
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that principle* Every simulating halt decider
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that correctly simulates its input until it
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly predicts that this simulated input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never terminate normally, correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rejects this input as non-halting.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *H is a Pure function*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thus implements a *Computable function*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thus H is Turing computable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of software engineering*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/361701808_Halting_problem_proofs_refuted_on_the_basis_of_software_engineering
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You forgot to mention infinite recursion which
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I suppose is progress.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have proved that H(P,P) == 0 is correct.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have shown that H/P does implement the HP's
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible input" template.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Therefore I have refuted all of the halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem proofs that rely on this template.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Equating pathological input with non-halting is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous: you are only doing that because your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broken solution treats it as "infinite
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recursion". There is no recursion in [Strachey
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1965] and the HP proofs based on it.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is no recursion in any of the conventional
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> proofs only because no one ever previously
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bothered to fully examine how a simulating halt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider would address these otherwise
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "impossible" inputs.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have shown that a simulating halt decider needn't
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be recursive in nature:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/i42output/halting-problem/blob/main/README.txt
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You sure do make it easy to review your work.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "When the simulator detects the call to H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in P it forks the simulation into a non-halting
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> branch"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an infinite set of cases where this overly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simplistic criteria gets the wrong answer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is neither an honest review or any kind of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal: I have told you before: assertions made
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you claim there are an infinite number of cases
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where it gets the wrong answer then it shouldn't be
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too hard for to provide ONE case backing up your
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> claim.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void P(ptr x)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> static int count = 3;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> count--;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (!count) goto exit;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exit:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope; you seem to have forgotten that my decider is not
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> recursive in nature: my decider will correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine that that input is pathological so will
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> signal an exception.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The above terminates normally so your decider gets the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong answer.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is a pathological input so neither halts nor doesn't
> >>>>>>>>>>>> halt: pathological input is INVALID so the correct
> >>>>>>>>>>>> "answer" is to signal an exception.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> So you don't know how static variables work?
> >>>>>>>>>>> I am not surprised.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> void P(ptr x)
> >>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>> static int count = 0;
> >>>>>>>>>>> if (count++ >= 2) goto exit;
> >>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
> >>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>>>>>>>> exit:
> >>>>>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P,P));
> >>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> _Pm()
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000141e](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000141f](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001421](03) 83ec08 sub esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001424](05) a100000000 mov eax,[00000000]
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001429](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000142c](06) 8b0d00000000 mov ecx,[00000000]
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001432](03) 83c101 add ecx,+01
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001435](06) 890d00000000 mov [00000000],ecx
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000143b](04) 837dfc02 cmp dword [ebp-04],+02
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000143f](02) 7c02 jl 00001443
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001441](02) eb1b jmp 0000145e
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001443](03) 8b5508 mov edx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001446](01) 52 push edx
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001447](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000144a](01) 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000144b](05) e8defcffff call 0000112e
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001450](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001453](03) 8945f8 mov [ebp-08],eax
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001456](04) 837df800 cmp dword [ebp-08],+00
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000145a](02) 7402 jz 0000145e
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000145c](02) ebfe jmp 0000145c
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000145e](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001460](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001461](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0068) [00001461]
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> _main()
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000146e](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000146f](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001471](05) 681e140000 push 0000141e
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001476](05) 681e140000 push 0000141e
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000147b](05) e8aefcffff call 0000112e
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001480](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001483](01) 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001484](05) 685f050000 push 0000055f
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001489](05) e820f1ffff call 000005ae
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000148e](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001491](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001493](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001494](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0039) [00001494]
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
> >>>>>>>>>>> address address data code language
> >>>>>>>>>>> ======== ======== ======== =========
> >>>>>>>>>>> ============= [0000146e][00102462][00000000] 55
> >>>>>>>>>>> push ebp [0000146f][00102462][00000000] 8bec mov
> >>>>>>>>>>> ebp,esp [00001471][0010245e][0000141e] 681e140000 push
> >>>>>>>>>>> 0000141e [00001476][0010245a][0000141e] 681e140000 push
> >>>>>>>>>>> 0000141e [0000147b][00102456][00001480] e8aefcffff call
> >>>>>>>>>>> 0000112e
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:11250e
> >>>>>>>>>>> Address_of_H:112e
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000141e][001124fa][001124fe] 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000141f][001124fa][001124fe] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001421][001124f2][90909090] 83ec08 sub esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001424][001124f2][90909090] a100000000 mov
> >>>>>>>>>>> eax,[00000000] [00001429][001124f2][90909090] 8945fc
> >>>>>>>>>>> mov [ebp-04],eax [0000142c][001124f2][90909090]
> >>>>>>>>>>> 8b0d00000000 mov ecx,[00000000]
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001432][001124f2][90909090] 83c101 add ecx,+01
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001435][001124f2][90909090] 890d00000000 mov
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00000000],ecx [0000143b][001124f2][90909090] 837dfc02
> >>>>>>>>>>> cmp dword [ebp-04],+02 [0000143f][001124f2][90909090] 7c02
> >>>>>>>>>>> jl 00001443 [00001441][001124f2][90909090] eb1b
> >>>>>>>>>>> jmp 0000145e [0000145e][001124fa][001124fe] 8be5
> >>>>>>>>>>> mov esp,ebp [00001460][001124fe][00001217] 5d
> >>>>>>>>>>> pop ebp [00001461][00112502][0000141e] c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>> H: End Simulation Input Terminated Normally
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001480][00102462][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001483][0010245e][00000001] 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001484][0010245a][0000055f] 685f050000 push 0000055f
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001489][0010245a][0000055f] e820f1ffff call 000005ae
> >>>>>>>>>>> Input_Halts = 1
> >>>>>>>>>>> [0000148e][00102462][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001491][00102462][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001493][00102466][00000018] 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>>>>> [00001494][0010246a][00000000] c3 ret
> >>>>>>>>>>> Number of Instructions Executed(1317) == 20 Pages
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> For this particular stack trace I notice that the function
> >>>>>>>>>> symbol at the top of it is Pm not P which suggests to me
> >>>>>>>>>> one of two things:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I already had a P so I renamed it to Pm so it would not
> >>>>>>>>> disturb my existing code. When I changed all the Pm
> >>>>>>>>> references to your name I forgot one.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Then I suggest you check the output of compilation/linking is
> >>>>>>>> actually initializing static variables correctly. Are you
> >>>>>>>> even using a linker or are you just executing an object file?
> >>>>>>>> Static data normally goes into a separate data segment during
> >>>>>>>> the linking process.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I haven't used static data in such a long time that I forgot
> >>>>>>> the compiler does not allocate any space for static variables
> >>>>>>> unless they have been initialized to a non-zero value.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> void Pm(u32 x)
> >>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>> static int count = 0x777;
> >>>>>>> if (count++ > 0x777) goto exit;
> >>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> >>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
> >>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>>>> exit:
> >>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Pm, (u32)Pm));
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _Pm()
> >>>>>>> [00000a1a](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>> [00000a1b](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>> [00000a1d](03) 83ec08 sub esp,+08
> >>>>>>> [00000a20](05) a107030000 mov eax,[00000307]
> >>>>>>> [00000a25](03) 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax
> >>>>>>> [00000a28](06) 8b0d07030000 mov ecx,[00000307]
> >>>>>>> [00000a2e](03) 83c101 add ecx,+01
> >>>>>>> [00000a31](06) 890d07030000 mov [00000307],ecx
> >>>>>>> [00000a37](07) 817dfc77070000 cmp dword [ebp-04],00000777
> >>>>>>> [00000a3e](02) 7e02 jng 00000a42
> >>>>>>> [00000a40](02) eb1b jmp 00000a5d
> >>>>>>> [00000a42](03) 8b5508 mov edx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>> [00000a45](01) 52 push edx
> >>>>>>> [00000a46](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>> [00000a49](01) 50 push eax
> >>>>>>> [00000a4a](05) e8ebfdffff call 0000083a // call H
> >>>>>>> [00000a4f](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>> [00000a52](03) 8945f8 mov [ebp-08],eax
> >>>>>>> [00000a55](04) 837df800 cmp dword [ebp-08],+00
> >>>>>>> [00000a59](02) 7402 jz 00000a5d
> >>>>>>> [00000a5b](02) ebfe jmp 00000a5b
> >>>>>>> [00000a5d](02) 8be5 mov esp,ebp
> >>>>>>> [00000a5f](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>> [00000a60](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0071) [00000a60]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> _main()
> >>>>>>> [00000a6a](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>> [00000a6b](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>> [00000a6d](05) 681a0a0000 push 00000a1a // push address
> >>>>>>> of P [00000a72](05) 681a0a0000 push 00000a1a // push
> >>>>>>> address of P [00000a77](05) e8befdffff call 0000083a //
> >>>>>>> call H [00000a7c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>> [00000a7f](01) 50 push eax
> >>>>>>> [00000a80](05) 680b030000 push 0000030b
> >>>>>>> [00000a85](05) e8d0f8ffff call 0000035a
> >>>>>>> [00000a8a](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>> [00000a8d](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >>>>>>> [00000a8f](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>> [00000a90](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0039) [00000a90]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
> >>>>>>> address address data code language
> >>>>>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
> >>>>>>> ...[00000a6a][0010137b][00000000] 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>> ...[00000a6b][0010137b][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>> ...[00000a6d][00101377][00000a1a] 681a0a0000 push
> >>>>>>> 00000a1a ...[00000a72][00101373][00000a1a] 681a0a0000
> >>>>>>> push 00000a1a ...[00000a77][0010136f][00000a7c] e8befdffff
> >>>>>>> call 0000083a New slave_stack at:201427
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored
> >>>>>>> at:21142f ...[00000a1a][0021141b][0021141f] 55
> >>>>>>> push ebp ...[00000a1b][0021141b][0021141f] 8bec mov
> >>>>>>> ebp,esp ...[00000a1d][00211413][90909090] 83ec08 sub
> >>>>>>> esp,+08 ...[00000a20][00211413][90909090] a107030000 mov
> >>>>>>> eax,[00000307] ...[00000a25][00211413][90909090] 8945fc
> >>>>>>> mov [ebp-04],eax ...[00000a28][00211413][90909090]
> >>>>>>> 8b0d07030000 mov ecx,[00000307]
> >>>>>>> ...[00000a2e][00211413][90909090] 83c101 add ecx,+01
> >>>>>>> ...[00000a31][00211413][90909090] 890d07030000 mov
> >>>>>>> [00000307],ecx ...[00000a37][00211413][90909090]
> >>>>>>> 817dfc77070000 cmp dword [ebp-04],00000777
> >>>>>>> ...[00000a3e][00211413][90909090] 7e02 jng
> >>>>>>> 00000a42 ...[00000a42][00211413][90909090] 8b5508
> >>>>>>> mov edx,[ebp+08] ...[00000a45][0021140f][00000a1a] 52 push
> >>>>>>> edx // push address of P
> >>>>>>> ...[00000a46][0021140f][00000a1a] 8b4508 mov
> >>>>>>> eax,[ebp+08] ...[00000a49][0021140b][00000a1a] 50 push eax
> >>>>>>> // push address of P ...[00000a4a][00211407][00000a4f]
> >>>>>>> e8ebfdffff call 0000083a // call H New slave_stack
> >>>>>>> at:24be4f ...[00000a1a][0025be43][0025be47] 55
> >>>>>>> push ebp ...[00000a1b][0025be43][0025be47] 8bec
> >>>>>>> mov ebp,esp ...[00000a1d][0025be3b][90909090] 83ec08
> >>>>>>> sub esp,+08 ...[00000a20][0025be3b][90909090] a107030000
> >>>>>>> mov eax,[00000307] ...[00000a25][0025be3b][90909090] 8945fc
> >>>>>>> mov [ebp-04],eax ...[00000a28][0025be3b][90909090]
> >>>>>>> 8b0d07030000 mov ecx,[00000307]
> >>>>>>> ...[00000a2e][0025be3b][90909090] 83c101 add ecx,+01
> >>>>>>> ...[00000a31][0025be3b][90909090] 890d07030000 mov
> >>>>>>> [00000307],ecx ...[00000a37][0025be3b][90909090]
> >>>>>>> 817dfc77070000 cmp dword [ebp-04],00000777
> >>>>>>> ...[00000a3e][0025be3b][90909090] 7e02 jng
> >>>>>>> 00000a42 ...[00000a40][0025be3b][90909090] eb1b
> >>>>>>> jmp 00000a5d // jmp to exit ...[00000a5d][0025be43][0025be47]
> >>>>>>> 8be5 mov esp,ebp ...[00000a5f][0025be47][00000904]
> >>>>>>> 5d pop ebp ...[00000a60][0025be4b][00000a1a] c3
> >>>>>>> ret ...[00000a7c][0010137b][00000000] 83c408
> >>>>>>> add esp,+08 ...[00000a7f][00101377][00000001] 50
> >>>>>>> push eax ...[00000a80][00101373][0000030b] 680b030000
> >>>>>>> push 0000030b ---[00000a85][00101373][0000030b] e8d0f8ffff
> >>>>>>> call 0000035a Input_Halts = 1
> >>>>>>> ...[00000a8a][0010137b][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>> ...[00000a8d][0010137b][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >>>>>>> ...[00000a8f][0010137f][00100000] 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>> ...[00000a90][00101383][00000004] c3 ret
> >>>>>>> Number of Instructions Executed(27278)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Still seems wrong: post increment of the static variable should
> >>>>>> ensure that it does NOT goto exit but instead should call H
> >>>>>> which should presumably cause your "infinite recursion
> >>>>>> detected" bollocks to manifest.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK, I've looked at your assembly trace and it is recursing into
> >>>>> Pm from H and then halting but I am not sure what you are
> >>>>> trying to prove? Again [Strachey 1965] and associated proofs
> >>>>> are not recursive in nature.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> (1) H cannot correctly determine the halt status of the HP
> >>>> counter-examples unless H is a simulating halt decider.
> >>>>
> >>>> (2) The claim of the halting problem proofs is that no H in the
> >>>> universe can possibly correctly determine the halt status of its
> >>>> corresponding pathological input.
> >>>>
> >>>> (3) H(P,P) does correctly determine that its correponding
> >>>> pathological input would never halt.
> >>>>
> >>>> (4) It is ridiculously stupid of you to say that [Strachey 1965]
> >>>> does not specify infinitely recursive simulation when it is an
> >>>> easily verified fact that when Strachey T <is> a simulating halt
> >>>> decider that Strachey P <does> specify infinitely recursive
> >>>> simulation.
> >>>>
> >>>> It does not say this directly in [Strachey 1965] only because no
> >>>> one ever previously bothered to fully examine the effect of a
> >>>> simulating halt decider on the HP's pathological inputs.
> >>>
> >>> I see I have to repeat myself yet again: a simulating halt decider
> >>> needn't be recursive in nature and I have sketched a design of
> >>> such a halt decider:
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/i42output/halting-problem/blob/main/README.txt
> >>>
> >>> You are incorrect to claim an equivalence between pathological
> >>> input and non-halting.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> 19 When the simulator detects the call to H in P it forks the
> >> simulation 20 into a non-halting branch (returning 0 to P) and a
> >> halting branch 21 (returning 1 to P)
> >>
> >> Software engineers at the low end of technical competence may not
> >> fully comprehend the common knowledge that:
> >>
> >> Whenever a function is called in what is essentially infinite
> >> recursion this function cannot possibly correctly return any value
> >> to its caller. You don't seem to understand that.
> >
> > Why are you so fucking obtuse? My forking simulating decider IS NOT
> > RECURSIVE.
>
> It is directly disobeying the actual behavior specified by the actual
> input by returning a value to a function that called it in infinite
> recursion.
There is no infinite recursion in [Strachey 1965]. There is no infinite
recursion in the proofs based on [Strachey 1965]. There is no infinite
recursion in my forking simulating decider. The only infinite recursion
is that infinite recursion associated with your broken decider.
/Flibble
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 14:19 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 20:28 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 15:02 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 21:22 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:02 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 23:30 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 17:41 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 07:23 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 01:46 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 07:48 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 13:06 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 09:19 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 15:32 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 10:07 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 16:18 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 10:27 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 16:29 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 16:49 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 10:58 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 17:03 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:00 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 18:08 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:26 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 18:28 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:39 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 18:46 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:04 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 13:17 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:23 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 13:34 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:46 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 13:31 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:41 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 14:04 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 20:11 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ establishing my authorship and asserting my copyrights ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 14:28 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ establishing my authorship and asserting my copyrights ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 20:33 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ establishing my authorship and asserting my copyrights ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 19:32 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 12:20 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 20:23 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 12:26 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 20:27 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-07-15 19:37 +0000
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 12:39 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 20:41 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 12:53 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 15:03 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 13:06 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 15:16 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 13:23 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 21:26 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 13:36 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 21:39 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 13:44 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 21:49 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 14:08 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 22:10 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 14:14 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 22:20 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 14:27 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 22:29 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 14:36 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 22:39 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 15:03 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 23:05 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 15:43 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 23:47 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 16:01 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-16 00:08 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 16:18 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 18:12 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 16:22 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 18:44 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 16:51 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 18:59 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 17:08 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 20:59 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 20:24 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 23:17 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 22:50 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 06:47 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 10:15 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 11:41 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 16:34 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 18:54 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 16:58 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 19:07 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 17:17 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 19:44 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 17:50 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Big Dick <bigdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 22:42 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Big Dick <Big.Dick@olcott.crap> - 2022-07-15 21:22 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:49 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 19:38 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 18:56 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 21:05 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 20:36 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 21:47 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 20:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 22:12 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 21:27 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 22:39 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 00:15 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-16 00:59 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 08:38 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 06:36 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 08:39 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 10:15 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 10:16 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 08:33 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 21:21 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 13:27 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 21:53 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:09 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:21 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:32 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 21:32 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:06 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:16 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:24 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:32 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:35 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:39 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:45 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:34 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 20:43 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:46 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:45 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 15:21 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 17:37 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 15:44 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 17:54 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:05 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:07 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:08 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 18:15 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:18 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:19 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 18:25 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 17:15 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-14 17:24 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 19:33 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 21:53 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 00:01 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 07:56 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 09:22 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 17:51 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 20:00 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:28 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:29 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-14 18:28 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:28 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 18:12 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:17 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 12:14 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 14:48 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 13:01 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 15:11 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 13:19 -0700
csiph-web