Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #85266
| 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 | <20220715194649.00007759@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (15 earlier) <KbSdncHSDus_N0z_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <20220715190440.00001376@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <qLGdnfQQtoHfMkz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <20220715192306.00003910@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <XqqdnZSta5rZLkz_nZ2dnUU7_8xg4p2d@giganews.com> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corporation |
| Date | 2022-07-15 19:46 +0100 |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 13:34:43 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/15/2022 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> The pathological input ([Strachey 1965] and others) to every
> simulating halt decider specifies infinitely nested simulution to
> every simulating halt decider.
My simulating halt decider does not have any infinite nesting or
infinite recursion.
/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