Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #85269
| 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 | <20220715201115.000077ac@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (15 earlier) <20220715190440.00001376@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <qLGdnfQQtoHfMkz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <XqqdnZWta5oKL0z_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <20220715194148.00005b14@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <y6qdnTUA2dGqJ0z_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corporation |
| Date | 2022-07-15 20:11 +0100 |
Cross-posted to 2 groups.
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 14:04:22 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/15/2022 1:41 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > 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
> >
>
> https://github.com/i42output/halting-problem/blob/main/README.txt
>
> You did not bother to copycat my criteria: "with the same input"
> therefore your specification fails the above test.
The only thing my decider and your decider have in common is that they
are both simulating halt deciders.
>
> 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).
>
> As already shown before you also did not bother to copycat my
> criteria (3) which provides another escape route from non-termination.
>
> When you add these crriteria I insist on a reference to my copyright
> notice for these criteria.
>
> *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
No. You cannot copyright the idea of a simulating halt decider; you only
have a copyright for your broken simulating halt decider.
/Flibble
Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 14:19 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 20:28 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 15:02 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 21:22 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:02 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-14 23:30 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 17:41 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 07:23 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 01:46 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 07:48 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 13:06 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 09:19 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 15:32 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 10:07 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 16:18 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 10:27 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 16:29 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 16:49 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 10:58 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 17:03 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:00 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 18:08 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:26 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 18:28 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:39 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 18:46 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 12:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:04 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 13:17 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:23 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 13:34 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:46 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 13:31 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:41 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 14:04 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 20:11 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ establishing my authorship and asserting my copyrights ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 14:28 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ establishing my authorship and asserting my copyrights ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 20:33 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ establishing my authorship and asserting my copyrights ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 19:32 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 12:20 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 20:23 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 12:26 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 20:27 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-07-15 19:37 +0000
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 12:39 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 20:41 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 12:53 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 15:03 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 13:06 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 15:16 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 13:23 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 21:26 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 13:36 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 21:39 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 13:44 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 21:49 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 14:08 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 22:10 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 14:14 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 22:20 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 14:27 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 22:29 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 14:36 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 22:39 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 15:03 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 23:05 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 15:43 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 23:47 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 16:01 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-16 00:08 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 16:18 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 18:12 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 16:22 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 18:44 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 16:51 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 18:59 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 17:08 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 20:59 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 20:24 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 23:17 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 22:50 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 06:47 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 10:15 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 11:41 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 16:34 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 18:54 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 16:58 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 19:07 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 17:17 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 19:44 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 17:50 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Big Dick <bigdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 22:42 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Big Dick <Big.Dick@olcott.crap> - 2022-07-15 21:22 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-07-15 19:49 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 19:38 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 18:56 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 21:05 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 20:36 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 21:47 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 20:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 22:12 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 21:27 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 22:39 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 00:15 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> - 2022-07-16 00:59 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 08:38 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 06:36 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 08:39 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 10:15 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 10:16 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 08:33 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 21:21 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 13:27 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 21:53 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:09 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:21 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:32 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 21:32 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:06 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:16 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:24 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:32 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:35 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:39 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:45 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:34 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 20:43 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:46 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 14:45 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 16:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 15:21 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 17:37 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 15:44 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 17:54 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:05 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:07 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:08 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 18:15 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:18 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:19 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 18:25 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 17:15 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-14 17:24 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 19:33 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-14 21:53 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 00:01 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-15 07:56 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 09:22 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 17:51 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 20:00 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:28 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:29 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2022-07-14 18:28 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 18:28 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-14 18:12 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2022-07-14 16:17 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 12:14 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 14:48 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 13:01 -0700
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 15:11 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering (Simplified so that most anyone here can validate it) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> - 2022-07-15 13:19 -0700
csiph-web