Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #85265
| 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 | <20220715194148.00005b14@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (15 earlier) <20220715184619.00003607@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <KbSdncHSDus_N0z_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <20220715190440.00001376@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <qLGdnfQQtoHfMkz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <XqqdnZWta5oKL0z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corporation |
| Date | 2022-07-15 19:41 +0100 |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 13:31:50 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/15/2022 1:17 PM, olcott 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.
> >
> >
>
> Even if we did accept that your pathological self-reference detector
> is valid it is only a copycat of my idea and it provides a weaker
> result. It answers: I don't know and mine answers: non-halting.
I could trivially change my decider to return a decision of non-halting
instead of signaling an exception if I believed such a mapping was
correct, but I don't, so I won't.
>
> Because you did not even copycat my criteria correctly your H gets
> the wrong answer on this input.
>
> int add(int N)
> {
> return N + 3;
> }
>
> void Pc(ptr x)
> {
> H(add, (ptr)7);
> return;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(Pc,Pc));
> }
My decider would correctly answer that Pc halts: passing a different
input to H would be equivalent to the call to H from main(), i.e. it
would be a function call rather than a fork detection: forks only
happen if H is called with the same input more than once.
/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