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 4 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 14:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e42fe69c-994c-4880-8c23-7dee8164df8an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85299 |
On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 23:20:35 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: > 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. Yeah, your program is answering a completely different question to the one it needs to answer. It's supposed to answer the question "Will P halt?" It's answering the question "Is P valid?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 22:29 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220715222925.00001d82@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #85300 |
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 14:27:59 -0700 (PDT) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 23:20:35 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: > > 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. > > Yeah, your program is answering a completely different question to > the one it needs to answer. > > It's supposed to answer the question "Will P halt?" > It's answering the question "Is P valid?" It is answering the question "Is P valid and does is halt?" /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 14:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b24d6f8-a796-400c-8e03-f7d83d66eaa5n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85301 |
On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 23:29:40 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: > It is answering the question "Is P valid and does is halt?" Bullshit. That question has three possible answers: P is valid and it halts. P is valid and it doesn't halt. P is not valid. H returns a Boolean. Which return value represents the 3rd answer?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 22:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220715223942.00002cb1@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #85302 |
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 14:36:17 -0700 (PDT) Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> wrote: > On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 23:29:40 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: > > It is answering the question "Is P valid and does is halt?" > > Bullshit. That question has three possible answers: > > P is valid and it halts. > P is valid and it doesn't halt. > P is not valid. > > H returns a Boolean. Which return value represents the 3rd answer? The 3rd answer is in the form a signaled exception much like the signaling NaN (sNaN) of IEEE 754 floating point. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 15:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8032c90a-bc8e-4574-ba28-8e478a277536n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85303 |
On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 23:39:57 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: > The 3rd answer is in the form a signaled exception much like the > signaling NaN (sNaN) of IEEE 754 floating point. Fuck me! You have absolutely no grasp of how information works. A Boolean function returns either a 1; or 0. A void function either throws an exception; or it doesn't. Both functions are communicating only 1 bit of information.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 23:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220715230555.000032a7@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #85305 |
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 15:03:58 -0700 (PDT)
Skep Dick <skepdick22@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, 15 July 2022 at 23:39:57 UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > The 3rd answer is in the form a signaled exception much like the
> > signaling NaN (sNaN) of IEEE 754 floating point.
>
> Fuck me! You have absolutely no grasp of how information works.
>
> A Boolean function returns either a 1; or 0.
> A void function either throws an exception; or it doesn't.
>
> Both functions are communicating only 1 bit of information.
bool foo()
{
if (valid())
{
if (halts())
return true;
else
return false;
}
throw invalid();
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 15:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0ed65586-cbd0-42f1-a3dc-30136dc5c4c6n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85306 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 12:06:12 AM UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> bool foo()
> {
> if (valid())
> {
> if (halts())
> return true;
> else
> return false;
> }
> throw invalid();
> }
You seem really skilled and incredibly determined to confuse yourself with syntactic irrelevancies.
Both implementations of halt() will produce an answer to the question "Does X halt?" if you just fill in the "magic-you-can't-explain" with the relevant logic.
void halt(x){
if(magic-you-can't-explain)
throw yes();
else
throw no();
}
bool halt(x){
if(magic-you-can't-explain)
return true;
else
return false;
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 23:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220715234735.00003479@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #85309 |
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 15:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 12:06:12 AM UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > bool foo()
> > {
> > if (valid())
> > {
> > if (halts())
> > return true;
> > else
> > return false;
> > }
> > throw invalid();
> > }
>
> You seem really skilled and incredibly determined to confuse yourself
> with syntactic irrelevancies.
>
> Both implementations of halt() will produce an answer to the question
> "Does X halt?" if you just fill in the "magic-you-can't-explain" with
> the relevant logic.
>
> void halt(x){
> if(magic-you-can't-explain)
> throw yes();
> else
> throw no();
> }
>
> bool halt(x){
> if(magic-you-can't-explain)
> return true;
> else
> return false;
> }
bool halt(x)
{
if (valid(x))
{
if (halts(x))
return true;
else
return false;
}
throw invalid();
}
My solution isn't magic and I can explain it; in fact I already have:
my proposal is novel, simple and to the point.
/Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 16:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5906034b-e28b-4a21-99ae-f4d1e2ac6c0bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85310 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 12:47:51 AM UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> My solution isn't magic and I can explain it; in fact I already have:
> my proposal is novel, simple and to the point.
I don't need you to explain anything.
I need you to produce working implementations of all the relevant functions: P(), H() and simulate().
If H is calling simulate(P) to determine if P halts, then P will call simulate(P) also in order to be contrarian about its halting behavior.
void P(void (*x)())
{
if (simulate(P))
infinite_loop: goto infinite_loop;
return;
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-16 00:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220716000831.00005e5d@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
| In reply to | #85312 |
On Fri, 15 Jul 2022 16:01:28 -0700 (PDT)
Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 12:47:51 AM UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > My solution isn't magic and I can explain it; in fact I already
> > have: my proposal is novel, simple and to the point.
>
> I don't need you to explain anything.
>
> I need you to produce working implementations of all the relevant
> functions: P(), H() and simulate(). If H is calling simulate(P) to
> determine if P halts, then P will call simulate(P) also in order to
> be contrarian about its halting behavior.
>
> void P(void (*x)())
> {
> if (simulate(P))
> infinite_loop: goto infinite_loop;
> return;
> }
I don't have to provide you with jack shit; I certainly don't have to
provide an implementation to prove my idea works; it is self evident
that my idea will work. In all seriousness though I have enough hobby
projects on the go as it is so I don't have the time to start another
one especially as the end result has no practical utility as a
simulating halting decider may not provide an answer within the
lifetime of the observable universe for the more interesting classes of
problems. I do think however that an interesting area of research might
be the intersection of the HP with quantum computing.
/Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skep Dick <skepdick23@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 16:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f169c65d-d1ec-422a-a2bc-375ab4e886efn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85313 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 1:08:47 AM UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote: > I don't have to provide you with jack shit; Whether you do; or don't have to is completely irrelevant in this context. You can't provide even if you had to. > it is self evident that my idea will work. Because it's self-evident that your idea doesn't work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 18:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <l_adnTovzZzuaUz_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #85312 |
On 7/15/2022 6:01 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 12:47:51 AM UTC+2, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> My solution isn't magic and I can explain it; in fact I already have:
>> my proposal is novel, simple and to the point.
>
> I don't need you to explain anything.
>
> I need you to produce working implementations of all the relevant functions: P(), H() and simulate().
> If H is calling simulate(P) to determine if P halts, then P will call simulate(P) also in order to be contrarian about its halting behavior.
>
> void P(void (*x)())
> {
> if (simulate(P))
> infinite_loop: goto infinite_loop;
> return;
> }
That is not how the halting problem pathological inputs are specified.
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
*THIS H HANDLES THAT CASE*
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));
}
--
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 <skepdick23@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 16:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <73594480-d5f6-46b9-861a-b6afbc3f5868n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85314 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 1:13:11 AM UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> 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
>
> *THIS H HANDLES THAT CASE*
>
> 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));
> }
This doesn't even compile. Because H is undefined.
➜ ~ gcc halt-decider.c
Undefined symbols for architecture x86_64:
"_H", referenced from:
_P in halt-decider-0ebdb3.o
_main in halt-decider-0ebdb3.o
ld: symbol(s) not found for architecture x86_64
clang: error: linker command failed with exit code 1 (use -v to see invocation)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 18:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <OMqdnTpw6qJyZkz_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #85316 |
On 7/15/2022 6:22 PM, Skep Dick wrote:
> On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 1:13:11 AM UTC+2, olcott wrote:
>> 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
>>
>> *THIS H HANDLES THAT CASE*
>>
>> 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));
>> }
>
> This doesn't even compile. Because H is undefined.
>
D:>cl /GS- /FAcu /FaHalt7.lst /c /arch:IA32 Halt7.c
Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 19.16.27026.1 for x86
Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Halt7.c
D:>
--
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 <skepdick23@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 16:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d16b8807-6d21-4d66-83ce-ca9443895d63n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85321 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 1:45:06 AM UTC+2, olcott wrote: > D:>cl /GS- /FAcu /FaHalt7.lst /c /arch:IA32 Halt7.c > Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 19.16.27026.1 for x86 > Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. > > Halt7.c https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/reference/c-compile-without-linking?view=msvc-170 Compiling with /c creates .obj files only. You must call LINK explicitly with the proper files and options to perform the linking phase of the build. Now remove the "/c" flag and show me the output.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 18:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <W4CdnYGk5r_UYkz_nZ2dnUU7_81j4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #85322 |
On 7/15/2022 6:51 PM, Skep Dick wrote: > On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 1:45:06 AM UTC+2, olcott wrote: >> D:>cl /GS- /FAcu /FaHalt7.lst /c /arch:IA32 Halt7.c >> Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 19.16.27026.1 for x86 >> Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. >> >> Halt7.c > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/reference/c-compile-without-linking?view=msvc-170 > > Compiling with /c creates .obj files only. You must call LINK explicitly with the proper files and options to perform the linking phase of the build. > > Now remove the "/c" flag and show me the output. Not at all. I designed the x86utm operating system to directly execute the COFF object file output of the Microsoft C compilers. -- 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 <skepdick23@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 17:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dde5cecd-5c78-4cba-b4e3-d9056b78936an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #85326 |
On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 1:59:24 AM UTC+2, olcott wrote:
> Not at all. I designed the x86utm operating system to directly execute
> the COFF object file output of the Microsoft C compilers.
Oh. OK! I designed the x86-fuck-utm operating system to directly execute the COFF object files also.
And since you went to the effort to ensure that the _H symbol is dynamically inked at runtime (in x86utm), I went through the effort to make sure that P is dynamically linked at runtime also (in x86-fuck-utm)
And what do you know! When I compile this code....
typedef void (*ptr)();
int H(ptr p, ptr i); // simulating halt decider
void P(ptr x); //simulating pathological case
int main()
{
H(P, P);
}
Both H and P are now undefined!
➜ ~ gcc -c halt-decider.c
➜ ~ nm halt-decider.o
U _H
U _P
0000000000000000 T _main
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 20:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <h4oAK.389356$vAW9.87281@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #85326 |
On 7/15/22 7:59 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/15/2022 6:51 PM, Skep Dick wrote: >> On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 1:45:06 AM UTC+2, olcott wrote: >>> D:>cl /GS- /FAcu /FaHalt7.lst /c /arch:IA32 Halt7.c >>> Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 19.16.27026.1 for x86 >>> Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. >>> >>> Halt7.c >> >> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/reference/c-compile-without-linking?view=msvc-170 >> >> >> Compiling with /c creates .obj files only. You must call LINK >> explicitly with the proper files and options to perform the linking >> phase of the build. >> >> Now remove the "/c" flag and show me the output. > > Not at all. I designed the x86utm operating system to directly execute > the COFF object file output of the Microsoft C compilers. > My guess is that since H is built in, it doesn't actually need to meet the definition of "a program" for the halt decider, so you can't build P the way you are SUPPOSED to a give it its own copy of H? Note, the code of P without the actual code of H fails to actually meet the definition of a program or computation, so you whole arguement starts off on shaky grounds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 20:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <i_6dnS9KmoLZjk__nZ2dnUU7_8xg4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #85330 |
On 7/15/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/15/22 7:59 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/15/2022 6:51 PM, Skep Dick wrote: >>> On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 1:45:06 AM UTC+2, olcott wrote: >>>> D:>cl /GS- /FAcu /FaHalt7.lst /c /arch:IA32 Halt7.c >>>> Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 19.16.27026.1 for x86 >>>> Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. >>>> >>>> Halt7.c >>> >>> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/reference/c-compile-without-linking?view=msvc-170 >>> >>> >>> Compiling with /c creates .obj files only. You must call LINK >>> explicitly with the proper files and options to perform the linking >>> phase of the build. >>> >>> Now remove the "/c" flag and show me the output. >> >> Not at all. I designed the x86utm operating system to directly execute >> the COFF object file output of the Microsoft C compilers. >> > > My guess is that since H is built in, it doesn't actually need to meet > the definition of "a program" for the halt decider, so you can't build P > the way you are SUPPOSED to a give it its own copy of H? > > Note, the code of P without the actual code of H fails to actually meet > the definition of a program or computation, so you whole arguement > starts off on shaky grounds. H is not built in. The x86utm operating system is built in. H and P are both essentially user code invoked through main(). -- 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 | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-07-15 23:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u5qAK.95907$%i2.36595@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #85332 |
On 7/15/22 9:24 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/15/2022 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 7/15/22 7:59 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/15/2022 6:51 PM, Skep Dick wrote: >>>> On Saturday, July 16, 2022 at 1:45:06 AM UTC+2, olcott wrote: >>>>> D:>cl /GS- /FAcu /FaHalt7.lst /c /arch:IA32 Halt7.c >>>>> Microsoft (R) C/C++ Optimizing Compiler Version 19.16.27026.1 for x86 >>>>> Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. >>>>> >>>>> Halt7.c >>>> >>>> https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/reference/c-compile-without-linking?view=msvc-170 >>>> >>>> >>>> Compiling with /c creates .obj files only. You must call LINK >>>> explicitly with the proper files and options to perform the linking >>>> phase of the build. >>>> >>>> Now remove the "/c" flag and show me the output. >>> >>> Not at all. I designed the x86utm operating system to directly >>> execute the COFF object file output of the Microsoft C compilers. >>> >> >> My guess is that since H is built in, it doesn't actually need to meet >> the definition of "a program" for the halt decider, so you can't build >> P the way you are SUPPOSED to a give it its own copy of H? >> >> Note, the code of P without the actual code of H fails to actually >> meet the definition of a program or computation, so you whole >> arguement starts off on shaky grounds. > > H is not built in. The x86utm operating system is built in. > H and P are both essentially user code invoked through main(). > So, where does H come for the COEF file, since it isn't in the file with P? Is is actually POSSIBLE to include in P its own copy of H, seperate from the one trying to decide it (and that behaves identically?) Note: If you H gets its "address" from its execution, then that becomes an "input" to it, and makes it NOT the equivalent of the Turing Machine it is supposed to be. This is one point where the requirements of a Computation in Computtion Theory are a bit stricter than "Software Engineering" concept of a "Pure Function", Computation theory requires that ALL COPIES of a Computaton behave the same, while the concept of a pure function dosn't always require copies to act the same.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 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