Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.software-eng > #3504
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic, sci.math, comp.software-eng |
| Subject | Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering |
| Message-ID | <20220702230537.00001259@reddwarf.jmc> (permalink) |
| References | (6 earlier) <r_qdndMhfIEBHV3_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> <20220702192847.00000807@reddwarf.jmc> <3O2dnX_5sOHXDF3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> <20220702194448.00005117@reddwarf.jmc> <S-mdnfRt7a-LJV3_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corp |
| Date | 2022-07-02 23:05 +0100 |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 16:26:45 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/2022 1:44 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 13:41:14 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 7/2/2022 1:28 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 12:30:03 -0500
> >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 7/2/2022 12:26 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 12:15:58 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 7/2/2022 12:10 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 11:42:48 -0500
> >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 7/2/2022 11:26 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sat, 2 Jul 2022 10:34:34 -0500
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> This much more concise version of my paper focuses on the
> >>>>>>>>>> actual execution of three fully operational examples.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> H0 correctly determines that Infinite_Loop() never halts
> >>>>>>>>>> H correctly determines that Infinite_Recursion() never
> >>>>>>>>>> halts H correctly determines that P() never halts
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> void P(u32 x)
> >>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>> if (H(x, x))
> >>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
> >>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> As shown below the above P and H have the required (halting
> >>>>>>>>>> problem) pathological relationship to each other:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 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
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I really need software engineers to verify that H does
> >>>>>>>>>> correctly predict that its complete and correct x86
> >>>>>>>>>> emulation of its input would never reach the "ret"
> >>>>>>>>>> instruction of this input.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> *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
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> void Px(u32 x)
> >>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>> H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px, (u32)Px));
> >>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ...[000013e8][00102357][00000000] 83c408 add
> >>>>>>>>> esp,+08 ...[000013eb][00102353][00000000] 50
> >>>>>>>>> push eax ...[000013ec][0010234f][00000427] 6827040000
> >>>>>>>>> push 00000427 ---[000013f1][0010234f][00000427] e880f0ffff
> >>>>>>>>> call 00000476 Input_Halts = 0
> >>>>>>>>> ...[000013f6][00102357][00000000] 83c408 add
> >>>>>>>>> esp,+08 ...[000013f9][00102357][00000000] 33c0
> >>>>>>>>> xor eax,eax ...[000013fb][0010235b][00100000] 5d
> >>>>>>>>> pop ebp ...[000013fc][0010235f][00000004] c3
> >>>>>>>>> ret Number of Instructions Executed(16120)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> As can be seen above Olcott's H decides that Px does not
> >>>>>>>>> halt but it is obvious that Px should always halt if H is a
> >>>>>>>>> valid halt decider that always returns a decision to its
> >>>>>>>>> caller (Px). Olcott's H does not return a decision to its
> >>>>>>>>> caller (Px) and is thus invalid.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Your false assumptions are directly contradicted by the
> >>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> *x86 Instruction Set Reference* https://c9x.me/x86/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> void Px(u32 x)
> >>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>> H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>> return;
> >>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px, (u32)Px));
> >>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _Px()
> >>>>>>>> [00001192](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>> [00001193](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>> [00001195](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>> [00001198](01) 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>> [00001199](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>> [0000119c](01) 51 push ecx
> >>>>>>>> [0000119d](05) e8d0fdffff call 00000f72
> >>>>>>>> [000011a2](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>> [000011a5](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>> [000011a6](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0021) [000011a6]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> _main()
> >>>>>>>> [000011d2](01) 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>> [000011d3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>> [000011d5](05) 6892110000 push 00001192
> >>>>>>>> [000011da](05) 6892110000 push 00001192
> >>>>>>>> [000011df](05) e88efdffff call 00000f72
> >>>>>>>> [000011e4](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>> [000011e7](01) 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>> [000011e8](05) 68a3040000 push 000004a3
> >>>>>>>> [000011ed](05) e800f3ffff call 000004f2
> >>>>>>>> [000011f2](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>> [000011f5](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >>>>>>>> [000011f7](01) 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>> [000011f8](01) c3 ret
> >>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0039) [000011f8]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
> >>>>>>>> address address data code language
> >>>>>>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
> >>>>>>>> [000011d2][00101f7f][00000000] 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>> [000011d3][00101f7f][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>> [000011d5][00101f7b][00001192] 6892110000 push 00001192
> >>>>>>>> [000011da][00101f77][00001192] 6892110000 push 00001192
> >>>>>>>> [000011df][00101f73][000011e4] e88efdffff call 00000f72
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:11202b
> >>>>>>>> Address_of_H:f72
> >>>>>>>> [00001192][00112017][0011201b] 55 push ebp
> >>>>>>>> [00001193][00112017][0011201b] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> >>>>>>>> [00001195][00112017][0011201b] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> >>>>>>>> [00001198][00112013][00001192] 50 push eax //
> >>>>>>>> push Px [00001199][00112013][00001192] 8b4d08 mov
> >>>>>>>> ecx,[ebp+08] [0000119c][0011200f][00001192] 51 push
> >>>>>>>> ecx // push Px [0000119d][0011200b][000011a2]
> >>>>>>>> e8d0fdffff call 00000f72 // call H(Px,Px) H: Infinitely
> >>>>>>>> Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> H knows its own machine address and on this basis it can
> >>>>>>>> easily examine its stored execution_trace of Px (see above)
> >>>>>>>> to determine: (a) Px is calling H with the same arguments
> >>>>>>>> that H was called with. (b) No instructions in Px could
> >>>>>>>> possibly escape this otherwise infinitely recursive
> >>>>>>>> emulation. (c) H aborts its emulation of Px before its call
> >>>>>>>> to H is emulated.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> [000011e4][00101f7f][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>> [000011e7][00101f7b][00000000] 50 push eax
> >>>>>>>> [000011e8][00101f77][000004a3] 68a3040000 push 000004a3
> >>>>>>>> [000011ed][00101f77][000004a3] e800f3ffff call 000004f2
> >>>>>>>> Input_Halts = 0
> >>>>>>>> [000011f2][00101f7f][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> >>>>>>>> [000011f5][00101f7f][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> >>>>>>>> [000011f7][00101f83][00000018] 5d pop ebp
> >>>>>>>> [000011f8][00101f87][00000000] c3 ret
> >>>>>>>> Number of Instructions Executed(880) == 13 Pages
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If H wasn't a simulation-based halting decider then Px() would
> >>>>>>> always halt; the infinite recursion is a manifestation of your
> >>>>>>> invalid simulation-based halting decider. There is no
> >>>>>>> recursion in [Strachey 1965].
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In other words you are rejecting the concept of a simulating
> >>>>>> halt decider even though I conclusively proved that it does
> >>>>>> correctly determine the halt status of: (see my new paper)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No I am rejecting your simulating halt decider as it gets the
> >>>>> answer wrong for Px() which is not a pathological input. Px()
> >>>>> halts.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> I just proved that H(Px,Px) does correctly predict that its
> >>>> complete and correct x86 emulation of its input would never reach
> >>>> the "ret" instruction of this input because of the pathological
> >>>> relationship between H and Px.
> >>>
> >>> Wrong. Px() is not a pathological input as defined by the halting
> >>> problem and [Strachey 1965] as it does not try to do the opposite
> >>> of what H decides.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >>
> >> Your lack of comprehension does not actually count as any rebuttal
> >> at all.
> >>
> >> void P(u32 x)
> >> {
> >> if (H(x, x))
> >> HERE: goto HERE;
> >> return;
> >> }
> >>
> >> int main()
> >> {
> >> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
> >> }
> >>
> >> As shown below the above P and H have the required (halting
> >> problem) pathological relationship to each other:
> > [snip]
> >
> > P does but Px does not. I am talking about Px not P.
> >
> > void Px(u32 x)
> > {
> > H(x, x);
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > int main()
> > {
> > Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px, (u32)Px));
> > }
> >
> > ...[000013e8][00102357][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> > ...[000013eb][00102353][00000000] 50 push eax
> > ...[000013ec][0010234f][00000427] 6827040000 push 00000427
> > ---[000013f1][0010234f][00000427] e880f0ffff call 00000476
> > Input_Halts = 0
> > ...[000013f6][00102357][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> > ...[000013f9][00102357][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> > ...[000013fb][0010235b][00100000] 5d pop ebp
> > ...[000013fc][0010235f][00000004] c3 ret
> > Number of Instructions Executed(16120)
> >
> > As can be seen above Olcott's H decides that Px does not halt but
> > it is obvious that Px should always halt if H is a valid halt
> > decider that always returns a decision to its caller (Px).
> > Olcott's H does not return a decision to its caller (Px) and is
> > thus invalid.
> >
> > /Flibble
> >
>
> >
>
> Your false assumptions are directly contradicted by the semantics of
> the x86 programming language.
>
> *x86 Instruction Set Reference* https://c9x.me/x86/
>
> void Px(u32 x)
> {
> H(x, x);
> return;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)Px, (u32)Px));
> }
>
> _Px()
> [00001192](01) 55 push ebp
> [00001193](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001195](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001198](01) 50 push eax
> [00001199](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [0000119c](01) 51 push ecx
> [0000119d](05) e8d0fdffff call 00000f72
> [000011a2](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> [000011a5](01) 5d pop ebp
> [000011a6](01) c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0021) [000011a6]
>
> _main()
> [000011d2](01) 55 push ebp
> [000011d3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [000011d5](05) 6892110000 push 00001192
> [000011da](05) 6892110000 push 00001192
> [000011df](05) e88efdffff call 00000f72
> [000011e4](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> [000011e7](01) 50 push eax
> [000011e8](05) 68a3040000 push 000004a3
> [000011ed](05) e800f3ffff call 000004f2
> [000011f2](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> [000011f5](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> [000011f7](01) 5d pop ebp
> [000011f8](01) c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0039) [000011f8]
>
> machine stack stack machine assembly
> address address data code language
> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
> [000011d2][00101f7f][00000000] 55 push ebp
> [000011d3][00101f7f][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [000011d5][00101f7b][00001192] 6892110000 push 00001192
> [000011da][00101f77][00001192] 6892110000 push 00001192
> [000011df][00101f73][000011e4] e88efdffff call 00000f72
>
> H: Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:11202b
> Address_of_H:f72
> [00001192][00112017][0011201b] 55 push ebp
> [00001193][00112017][0011201b] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001195][00112017][0011201b] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001198][00112013][00001192] 50 push eax // push Px
> [00001199][00112013][00001192] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [0000119c][0011200f][00001192] 51 push ecx // push Px
> [0000119d][0011200b][000011a2] e8d0fdffff call 00000f72 // call
> H(Px,Px) H: Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation
> Stopped
>
> H knows its own machine address and on this basis it can easily
> examine its stored execution_trace of Px (see above) to determine:
> (a) Px is calling H with the same arguments that H was called with.
> (b) No instructions in Px could possibly escape this otherwise
> infinitely recursive emulation.
> (c) H aborts its emulation of Px before its call to H is emulated.
>
> [000011e4][00101f7f][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> [000011e7][00101f7b][00000000] 50 push eax
> [000011e8][00101f77][000004a3] 68a3040000 push 000004a3
> [000011ed][00101f77][000004a3] e800f3ffff call 000004f2
> Input_Halts = 0
> [000011f2][00101f7f][00000000] 83c408 add esp,+08
> [000011f5][00101f7f][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> [000011f7][00101f83][00000018] 5d pop ebp
> [000011f8][00101f87][00000000] c3 ret
> Number of Instructions Executed(880) == 13 Pages
I see you wish to pointlessly go around in circles. Oh well.
Px() is not a pathological input as defined by the halting
problem and [Strachey 1965] as it does not try to do the opposite of
what H decides.
Px() always halts so your H gets the answer wrong.
/Flibble
Back to comp.software-eng | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 10:34 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-02 17:26 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 11:42 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 12:15 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-02 18:26 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 12:30 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-02 19:28 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 13:41 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-02 19:44 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 16:26 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-02 23:05 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-02 17:13 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-03 15:27 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-03 09:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-03 16:21 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-03 10:30 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-03 16:45 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-03 10:48 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-03 16:51 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-03 11:05 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-07-03 17:07 +0100
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-04 11:57 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-04 14:17 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-04 14:21 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-04 18:08 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 14:31 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 15:42 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-05 19:29 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 19:01 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-06 16:13 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-07 16:08 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-07 20:34 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-07 23:48 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Irrefutably Correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-09 13:40 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Irrefutably Correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-09 15:06 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 19:50 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [ Curry–Howard correspondence ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 21:37 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 07:59 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-05 08:00 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-05 19:31 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 14:37 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 15:51 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-13 19:10 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 21:29 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-13 19:29 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-15 11:26 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 19:18 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-16 20:38 -0400
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-16 20:19 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [thanks Mike] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-07-17 12:00 -0500
Re: Halting problem proofs refuted on the basis of software engineering [thanks Mike] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-07-17 13:06 -0400
csiph-web