Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #85176 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-07-14 14:19 -0500 |
| Last post | 2022-07-15 13:19 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 161 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c++
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
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 20:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220715202328.00006942@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #85271 |
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 12:20:50 -0700 (PDT) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 21:04:43 UTC+2, olcott wrote: > > Thoughts? I am probably missing something obvious. > > Yeah. You are missing the most obvious things of all. > > If H can execute P in a sandbox, then P can execute H in a sandbox. > > Function H **executing** function P in isolated runtime is not the > same thing as function H **calling** function P within the same > runtime. > > But, of course you know this. You are just going to conveniently > ignore it (again) for your usual contrarian reasons. > > It's really boresone that the only way you know how to learn is > through conflict and exploiting Cunningham's law. That is my prose you are replying to not Olcott's, he just copy pasted my idea from https://github.com/i42output/halting-problem /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 12:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <50c5706c-1ef1-4dbe-bfd2-ab2291d21934n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85272 |
On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 21:23:44 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: > That is my prose you are replying to not Olcott's, he just copy pasted > my idea from https://github.com/i42output/halting-problem > > /Flibble Ah, right! You are making the exact same conceptual error he's making.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 20:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220715202711.0000351b@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #85273 |
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 12:26:32 -0700 (PDT) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 21:23:44 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: > > That is my prose you are replying to not Olcott's, he just copy > > pasted my idea from https://github.com/i42output/halting-problem > > > > /Flibble > > Ah, right! > > You are making the exact same conceptual error he's making. What error is that? My approach and Olcott's approach are quite different. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 19:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1mjAK.95905$%i2.39895@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #85274 |
Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> writes: >On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 12:26:32 -0700 (PDT) >Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 21:23:44 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: >> > That is my prose you are replying to not Olcott's, he just copy >> > pasted my idea from https://github.com/i42output/halting-problem >> > >> > /Flibble >> >> Ah, right! >> >> You are making the exact same conceptual error he's making. > >What error is that? My approach and Olcott's approach are quite >different. It's a very simple error. Your ridiculous back and forth has nothing to do with either C++ or C. Please stop.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 12:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <07200acb-eef3-4fe0-b7a3-7b21539fe959n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85274 |
On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 21:27:26 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: > What error is that? My approach and Olcott's approach are quite > different. The approach is different. The error is the same. Whatever strategy is available to H for evaluating P is also available to P for evaluating H. So you will start with H(P) which branches into P(1) and P(0). P(1) runs H(P(1)) - it returns a Boolean. If H(P(1)) says P(1) halts then P(1) doesn't halt. If H(P(1)) says P(1) doesn't halt then P(1) halts. P(0) runs H(P(0)) - it returns a Boolean. If H(P(0)) says P(0) halts then P(0) doesn't halt. If H(P(0)) says that P(0) doesn't halt then P(0) halts. H and P have a circular dependency on each other. When the branches keep branching you end up with a fork bomb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_bomb
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 20:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220715204141.00006e0a@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #85278 |
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 12:39:21 -0700 (PDT) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 21:27:26 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: > > What error is that? My approach and Olcott's approach are quite > > different. > > The approach is different. The error is the same. > > Whatever strategy is available to H for evaluating P is also > available to P for evaluating H. > > So you will start with H(P) which branches into P(1) and P(0). > P(1) runs H(P(1)) - it returns a Boolean. > If H(P(1)) says P(1) halts then P(1) doesn't halt. > If H(P(1)) says P(1) doesn't halt then P(1) halts. > > P(0) runs H(P(0)) - it returns a Boolean. > If H(P(0)) says P(0) halts then P(0) doesn't halt. > If H(P(0)) says that P(0) doesn't halt then P(0) halts. > > H and P have a circular dependency on each other. When the branches > keep branching you end up with a fork bomb. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_bomb However H and P are not equivalent: H is a "special" function known to the simulator. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 12:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1a3335cc-f3a8-4e20-a682-16101d7d0a44n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85279 |
On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 21:41:57 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: > However H and P are not equivalent: H is a "special" function known to > the simulator. Which is a configuration entirely not in the spirit of the halting problem. We know that there are particular solutions to the halting problem. We know that more powerful models of computations (Turing machines with Oracles) can solve the halting problem for less powerful models of computation (Turing machines without Oracles). But the halting problem is explicit about seeking a general solution. No model of computation can solve the halting problem for computational systems of equal power.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 15:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ttKdnS0ziu-CVUz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #85281 |
On 7/15/2022 2:53 PM, Skep Dick wrote: > On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 21:41:57 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: >> However H and P are not equivalent: H is a "special" function known to >> the simulator. > Which is a configuration entirely not in the spirit of the halting problem. > > We know that there are particular solutions to the halting problem. > We know that more powerful models of computations (Turing machines with Oracles) can solve the halting problem for less powerful models of computation (Turing machines without Oracles). > > But the halting problem is explicit about seeking a general solution. > > No model of computation can solve the halting problem for computational systems of equal power. > I am not solving the halting problem that would require that I present an omniscient (all knowing) computer program. I have correctly refuted the conventional halting problem proofs by showing how a Turing a computable function would correctly determine the halt status of the previously "impossible" pathological inputs. *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 -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 13:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2499c450-b301-498d-84a9-9e2125523eacn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85283 |
On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 22:04:03 UTC+2, olcott wrote: > I have correctly refuted the conventional halting problem proofs by > showing how a Turing a computable function would correctly determine the > halt status of the previously "impossible" pathological inputs. And I am refuting your refutation. By showing you that if H can simulate P (with any input) to determine its result, then P can also simulate H (with any input) to determine its result.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 15:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <b7KdnS65xfSXVkz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #85284 |
On 7/15/2022 3:06 PM, Skep Dick wrote: > On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 22:04:03 UTC+2, olcott wrote: >> I have correctly refuted the conventional halting problem proofs by >> showing how a Turing a computable function would correctly determine the >> halt status of the previously "impossible" pathological inputs. > > And I am refuting your refutation. > > By showing you that if H can simulate P (with any input) to determine its result, then P can also simulate H (with any input) to determine its result. > > I am not solving the halting problem. I am refuting the conventional proofs of the halting theorem by showing how a Turing computable function correctly determines the halt status of the previously "impossible" pathologocal inputs. That is 100% of the entire scope of my project. References to things outside of this scope are not rebuttals. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 13:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c65b15f8-94dc-43c3-b7ea-f2e4b422a429n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85286 |
H is correctly emulating P (which is correctly emulating H (which is correctly emulating P (which is correctly emulating H( which is correctly emulating P(...))))) It's correct emulation all the way down.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 21:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220715212616.00006f82@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #85288 |
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 13:23:49 -0700 (PDT) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> wrote: > H is correctly emulating P (which is correctly emulating H (which is > correctly emulating P (which is correctly emulating H( which is > correctly emulating P(...))))) > > It's correct emulation all the way down. My approach doesn't suffer from this recursive pathology: https://github.com/i42output/halting-problem/blob/main/README.txt /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 13:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b6b44394-fa7e-4b10-a7f5-8153df8e1c0fn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85290 |
On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 22:26:31 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: > My approach doesn't suffer from this recursive pathology: The pathology doesn't arise from recursion. The pathology arises from the circular dependency between H and P. P's result depends on the return value of H. H's result depends on the return value of P.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 21:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220715213927.0000130c@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #85291 |
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 13:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 22:26:31 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: > > My approach doesn't suffer from this recursive pathology: > The pathology doesn't arise from recursion. > > The pathology arises from the circular dependency between H and P. > > P's result depends on the return value of H. > H's result depends on the return value of P. My approach breaks that circular dependency. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 13:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <28e35d2c-f081-40c3-a15d-0aa8a663fd74n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85292 |
On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 22:39:43 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: > My approach breaks that circular dependency. No, it doesn't. When P calls H passing itself as a parameter you are right back to square one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 21:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220715214916.0000783f@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #85293 |
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 13:44:58 -0700 (PDT) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 22:39:43 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: > > My approach breaks that circular dependency. > > No, it doesn't. When P calls H passing itself as a parameter you are > right back to square one. Nope. Try re-reading my solution. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 14:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b6620393-fb97-4d6a-af27-c21a9910e96dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85294 |
On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 22:49:33 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: > Nope. Try re-reading my solution. Your "solution" doesn't understand the problem. P is intentionally designed to be contrarian and do the exact opposite of whatever H says P will do. Perhaps programming languages are too confusing for you, so let me put it in terms you might understand. Any casual human interaction. We are sitting at the pub drinking beer and I surprise you with a really weird question! Why am I asking you this question? For no other reason that everyone in the pub says you are always right about everything! So here's my question: Am I going to kick you in the balls? But, of course, I have already decided how I am going to make my decision! Here is how... If you guess "yes" then I won't kick you in the balls. If you guess "no" then I will kick you in the balls. It's pretty obvious that if you have all of the above knowledge then you can certainly avoid a kick to the balls, but you can never make a correct prediction about what I am going to do!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 22:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220715221022.00001777@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #85295 |
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 14:08:39 -0700 (PDT) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 22:49:33 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: > > Nope. Try re-reading my solution. > > Your "solution" doesn't understand the problem. > > P is intentionally designed to be contrarian and do the exact > opposite of whatever H says P will do. Perhaps programming languages > are too confusing for you, so let me put it in terms you might > understand. Any casual human interaction. > > We are sitting at the pub drinking beer and I surprise you with a > really weird question! Why am I asking you this question? For no > other reason that everyone in the pub says you are always right about > everything! > > So here's my question: Am I going to kick you in the balls? > > But, of course, I have already decided how I am going to make my > decision! Here is how... > > If you guess "yes" then I won't kick you in the balls. > If you guess "no" then I will kick you in the balls. > > It's pretty obvious that if you have all of the above knowledge then > you can certainly avoid a kick to the balls, but you can never make a > correct prediction about what I am going to do! Really bad analogy, bro. My solution is both novel and correct. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 14:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <54e2f544-af47-4a72-aa27-5c8513bf6963n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85297 |
On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 23:10:37 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: > Really bad analogy, bro. My solution is both novel and correct. It's a perfect analogy, bro. If you are "correct" in saying that I won't kick you in the balls then I am going to kick you in the balls. If you are "correct" in saying that I will kick you in the balls then I am not going to kick you in the balls.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 22:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220715222018.000075f9@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #85298 |
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 14:14:14 -0700 (PDT) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 23:10:37 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: > > Really bad analogy, bro. My solution is both novel and correct. > > It's a perfect analogy, bro. > > If you are "correct" in saying that I won't kick you in the balls > then I am going to kick you in the balls. If you are "correct" in > saying that I will kick you in the balls then I am not going to kick > you in the balls. The contradiction of which you speak is [Strachey 1965]'s "Impossible Program" and my solution detects it and signals an exception because in my opinion it is INVALID input. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c++
csiph-web