Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] |
| Message-ID | <20220625201552.00001f2f@reddwarf.jmc> (permalink) |
| References | (13 earlier) <f0fa1007-c2e1-405d-b74c-b9701fc33ab0n@googlegroups.com> <S8udnWTpo617qir_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <bf7c8dfe-4551-4589-a273-d0dff16a87a0n@googlegroups.com> <w6GdnTS8QYHH1ir_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <bf62d3d3-2adb-4546-a6d7-dd5bcca2a611n@googlegroups.com> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corp |
| Date | 2022-06-25 20:15 +0100 |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 11:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 6:52:33 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> > On 6/25/2022 12:21 PM, Paul N wrote:
> > > On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 5:29:33 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> > >> On 6/25/2022 11:19 AM, Paul N wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, June 25, 2022 at 3:10:50 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> > >>>> On 6/25/2022 6:56 AM, Paul N wrote:
> > >>>>> On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 9:27:27 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> > >>>>>> On 6/24/2022 3:05 PM, Paul N wrote:
> > >>>>>>> On Friday, June 24, 2022 at 7:52:22 PM UTC+1, olcott wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> On 6/22/2022 9:23 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 10:15:11 PM UTC-4, olcott
> > >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2022 8:44 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 9:38:03 PM UTC-4, olcott
> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2022 8:21 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 9:17:02 PM UTC-4,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2022 8:02 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 7:11:35 PM UTC-4,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2022 5:48 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 6:22:56 PM UTC-4,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2022 4:53 PM, Dennis Bush wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, June 22, 2022 at 5:41:51 PM
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTC-4, olcott wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2022 4:20 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 15:27:01 -0500
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/22/2022 2:31 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 21 Jun 2022 21:38:56 -0500
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #include <stdint.h>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #define u32 uint32_t
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> #include <stdint.h>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef void (*ptr)();
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void P(ptr x)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (H(x, x))
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _P()
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010d2](01) 55 push ebp
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010d3](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010d5](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010d8](01) 50 push eax
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010d9](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010dc](01) 51 push ecx
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010dd](05) e820feffff call 00000f02
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010e2](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010e5](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010e7](02) 7402 jz 000010eb
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010e9](02) ebfe jmp 000010e9
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010eb](01) 5d pop ebp
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010ec](01) c3 ret
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [000010ec]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every sufficiently competent software
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineer can easily verify that the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete and correct x86 emulation of the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(P,P) by H would never reach the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "ret" instruction of P because both H and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P would remain stuck in infinitely
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recursive emulation.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If H does correctly determine that this is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the case in a finite number of steps then
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H could reject its input on this basis.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are the details of exactly how H does
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this in a finite number of steps.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef struct Decoded
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u32 Address;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u32 ESP; // Current value of ESP
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u32 TOS; // Current value of Top of Stack
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u32 NumBytes;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u32 Simplified_Opcode;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u32 Decode_Target;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> } Decoded_Line_Of_Code;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> address address data code language
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ======== ======== ======== =========
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =============
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010d2][00211e8a][00211e8e] 55 push ebp
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010d3][00211e8a][00211e8e] 8bec mov
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ebp,esp [000010d5][00211e8a][00211e8e]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010d8][00211e86][000010d2] 50 push eax
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // push P [000010d9][00211e86][000010d2]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000010dc][00211e82][000010d2] 51 push ecx
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // push P [000010dd][00211e7e][000010e2]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e820feffff call 00000f02 // call H
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulation Stopped
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // actual fully operational code in the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x86utm operating system u32 H(u32 P, u32
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I) {
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u32 End_Of_Code;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u32 Address_of_H; // 2022-06-17
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u32 code_end = get_code_end(P);
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Decoded_Line_Of_Code *decoded =
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Decoded_Line_Of_Code*)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allocate(sizeof(Decoded_Line_Of_Code));
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Registers* master_state = (Registers*)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allocate(sizeof(Registers)); Registers*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slave_state = (Registers*)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Allocate(sizeof(Registers)); u32*
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> slave_stack = Allocate(0x10000); // 64k;
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> u32 execution_trace =
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (u32)Allocate(sizeof(Decoded_Line_Of_Code)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> * 1000);
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> __asm lea eax, HERE // 2022-06-18
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> __asm sub eax, 6 // 2022-06-18
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> __asm mov Address_of_H, eax // 2022-06-18
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> __asm mov eax, END_OF_CODE
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> __asm mov End_Of_Code, eax
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Output("Address_of_H:", Address_of_H); //
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2022-06-11 Init_slave_state(P, I,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> End_Of_Code, slave_state, slave_stack);
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Output("\nBegin Simulation Execution Trace
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stored at:", execution_trace); if
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Decide_Halting(&execution_trace,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> &decoded, code_end, &master_state,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> &slave_state, &slave_stack, Address_of_H,
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P, I)) goto END_OF_CODE; return 0; // Does
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not halt END_OF_CODE: return 1; // Input
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has normally terminated }
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H knows its own machine address and on
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this basis it can easily examine its
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored execution_trace of P and determine:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (a) P is calling H with the same arguments
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H was called with. (b) No
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions in P could possibly escape
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this otherwise infinitely recursive
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emulation. (c) H aborts its emulation of P
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before its call to H is invoked.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Technically competent software engineers
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> may not know this computer science:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider must compute the mapping
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from its inputs to an accept or reject
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state on the basis of the actual behavior
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is actually specified by these
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation that halts … the Turing
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine will halt whenever it enters a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> final state. (Linz:1990:234)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The "ret" instruction of P is its final
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Formal Languages and Automata.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Company. (317-320)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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)
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It gets the answer wrong, i.e. input has
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not been decided correctly. QED.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You and Richard are insufficiently
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> technically competent at software
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering not meeting these specs:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A software engineer must be an expert in:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the C programming language, the x86
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programming language, exactly how C
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> translates into x86 and the ability to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recognize infinite recursion at the x86
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly language level. No knowledge of the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting problem is required.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I cannot speak for Richard but I have 30+
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> years C++ experience; I also have C and x86
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> assembly experience (I once wrote a Zilog
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Z80A CPU emulator in 80286 assembly) and I
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can recognize an infinite recursion; the
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem is that you cannot recognize the fact
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the infinite recursion only manifests as
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> part of your invalid simulation-based
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> omnishambles:
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you are competent then you already know
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this is true and lie about it: Every
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sufficiently competent software engineer can
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> easily verify that the complete and correct
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x86 emulation of the input to H(Px,Px) by H
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never reach the "ret" instruction of P
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because both H and P would remain stuck in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely recursive emulation.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H (if it was constructed correctly) is a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation, and a computation *always* gives
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same output for a given input. So it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't make sense to say what it "would" do.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It either does or does not perform a complete
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and correct emulation. And because H contains
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> code to abort, and does abort, it does not do a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete emulation.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So the input must be given to a UTM, which by
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition does a correct and complete
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation, to see what the actual behavior is.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> UTM(Px,Px) halts, therefore H(Px,Px)==0 is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every sufficiently competent software engineer
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can easily verify that the complete and correct
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> x86 emulation of the input to H(Px,Px) by H
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never reach the "ret" instruction of Px
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because both H and Px would remain stuck in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinitely recursive emulation.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you just repeated what you said instead of
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> explaining why I'm wrong. In other words you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided no rebuttal, which can only be taken to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mean that you have none.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your entire basis and all of assumptions was
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect so when I provided an infallible one to
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that cannot possibly be correctly refuted you
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply dodged it. That is a smart move for a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest person that is only interested in
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rebuttal.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I dare you to go back to the prior post and find
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any error in my airtight correct reasoning.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Another dodge will be construed as a tacit
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admission of defeat.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As stated before H (or more accurately Ha) does not
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perform a complete and correct emulation because it
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborts. So by definition it cannot be complete.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never claimed that H(P,P) performs a complete and
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct emulation of its input so your rebuttal is
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the strawman deception.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I claimed that H(P,P) correctly predicts that its
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> complete and correct x86 emulation of its input
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never reach the "ret" instruction of P.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> But since H, or more accurately Ha, *can't* do a
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> correct and complete emulation of its input, your
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> point is moot.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> _Infinite_Loop()
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001082](01) 55 push ebp
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001083](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001085](02) ebfe jmp 00001085
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001087](01) 5d pop ebp
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> [00001088](01) c3 ret
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0007) [00001088]
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Stored at:211e8f ...[00001082][00211e7f][00211e83] 55
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> push ebp ...[00001083][00211e7f][00211e83] 8bec mov
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> ebp,esp ...[00001085][00211e7f][00211e83] ebfe jmp
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 00001085 ...[00001085][00211e7f][00211e83] ebfe jmp
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> 00001085 Infinite Loop Detected Simulation Stopped
> > >>>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On the basis of this exact same utterly moronic
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> reasoning because H *can't* do a correct and complete
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> emulation of its input, H cannot possibly determine
> > >>>>>>>>>>>> that _Infinite_Loop() never halts.
> > >>>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>> Now who's using the strawman error? Just because H can
> > >>>>>>>>>>> determine that _Infinite_Loop does not halt doesn't
> > >>>>>>>>>>> mean that it gets other cases right. B
> > >>>>>>>>>> You just said that H(P,P) cannot correctly predict that
> > >>>>>>>>>> the correct and complete x86 emulation of its input
> > >>>>>>>>>> would never reach the "ret" instruction of P without a
> > >>>>>>>>>> compete x86 emulation of its input. I just proved that
> > >>>>>>>>>> is a very stupid thing to say.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> You said that H can predict what *its* correct and
> > >>>>>>>>> complete emulation would do, and I said that doesn't make
> > >>>>>>>>> sense because H does not do correct and complete
> > >>>>>>>>> emulation. What H *must* do is predict what *the* correct
> > >>>>>>>>> and complete emulation, i.e. UTM(P,P), would do. And it
> > >>>>>>>>> fails to do that.
> > >>>>>>>> From a purely software engineering perspective H(P,P) is
> > >>>>>>>> required to to correctly determine that its correct and
> > >>>>>>>> complete x86 emulation of its input would never reach the
> > >>>>>>>> "ret" instruction of this input and H must do this in a
> > >>>>>>>> finite number of steps.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The ordinary semantics of standard C and the conventional
> > >>>>>>>> x86 language are the entire semantics required to
> > >>>>>>>> conclusively prove that H(P,P) does correctly determine
> > >>>>>>>> that its correct and complete x86 emulation of its input
> > >>>>>>>> would never reach the "ret" instruction.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> That you disagree with easily verified software
> > >>>>>>>> engineering when you already know that this software
> > >>>>>>>> engineering is correct speaks loads about your character.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> The only computer science that need be added to this is
> > >>>>>>>> that the "ret" instruction is the final state of P and
> > >>>>>>>> that a sequence of configurations that cannot possibly
> > >>>>>>>> reach its final state is a non-halting sequence.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> You say that "H(P,P) is required to to correctly determine
> > >>>>>>> that its correct and complete x86 emulation of its input
> > >>>>>>> would never reach the "ret" instruction of this input". You
> > >>>>>>> seem to be assuming that H does an emulation of P, that
> > >>>>>>> this emulation includes emulating the call to H, that this
> > >>>>>>> call to H would start emulating the call to P, etc, etc,
> > >>>>>>> and so the call to P does not terminate.
> > >>>>>> Thanks for continuing to review this.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> No assumptions two years of software development derived
> > >>>>>> fully operational software that conclusively proves this.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> It might help people's understanding if we had a few more
> > >>>>> examples. Suppose, in addition to the normal P and H, we have
> > >>>>> two more functions as follows:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> void Q(void)
> > >>>>> {
> > >>>>> if (H(P, P))
> > >>>>> H2: goto H2;
> > >>>>> return;
> > >>>>> }
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> void R(void)
> > >>>>> {
> > >>>>> H(P, P);
> > >>>>> return;
> > >>>>> }
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Will Q return? Will R return?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Yes they both return.
> > >>>> void Q(void)
> > >>>> {
> > >>>> if (H(P, P))
> > >>>> H2: goto H2;
> > >>>> return;
> > >>>> }
> > >>>>
> > >>>> void R(void)
> > >>>> {
> > >>>> H(P, P);
> > >>>> return;
> > >>>> }
> > >>>> _P()
> > >>>> [000011f0](01) 55 push ebp
> > >>>> [000011f1](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > >>>> [000011f3](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> > >>>> [000011f6](01) 50 push eax
> > >>>> [000011f7](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> > >>>> [000011fa](01) 51 push ecx
> > >>>> [000011fb](05) e820feffff call 00001020
> > >>>> [00001200](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> > >>>> [00001203](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> > >>>> [00001205](02) 7402 jz 00001209
> > >>>> [00001207](02) ebfe jmp 00001207
> > >>>> [00001209](01) 5d pop ebp
> > >>>> [0000120a](01) c3 ret
> > >>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [0000120a]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _Q()
> > >>>> [00001210](01) 55 push ebp
> > >>>> [00001211](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > >>>> [00001213](05) 68f0110000 push 000011f0
> > >>>> [00001218](05) 68f0110000 push 000011f0
> > >>>> [0000121d](05) e8fefdffff call 00001020
> > >>>> [00001222](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
> > >>>> [00001225](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
> > >>>> [00001227](02) 7402 jz 0000122b
> > >>>> [00001229](02) ebfe jmp 00001229
> > >>>> [0000122b](01) 5d pop ebp
> > >>>> [0000122c](01) c3 ret
> > >>>> Size in bytes:(0029) [0000122c]
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _main()
> > >>>> [00001250](01) 55 push ebp
> > >>>> [00001251](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > >>>> [00001253](05) e8b8ffffff call 00001210
> > >>>> [00001258](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax
> > >>>> [0000125a](01) 5d pop ebp
> > >>>> [0000125b](01) c3 ret
> > >>>> Size in bytes:(0012) [0000125b]
> > >>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
> > >>>> address address data code language
> > >>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
> > >>>> ...[00001250][00102048][00000000] 55 push ebp
> > >>>> ...[00001251][00102048][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > >>>> ...[00001253][00102044][00001258] e8b8ffffff call 00001210
> > >>>> ...[00001210][00102040][00102048] 55 push ebp
> > >>>> ...[00001211][00102040][00102048] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > >>>> ...[00001213][0010203c][000011f0] 68f0110000 push 000011f0
> > >>>> ...[00001218][00102038][000011f0] 68f0110000 push 000011f0
> > >>>> ...[0000121d][00102034][00001222] e8fefdffff call 00001020
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:2120fc
> > >>>> Address_of_H:1020
> > >>>> ...[000011f0][002120e8][002120ec] 55 push ebp
> > >>>> ...[000011f1][002120e8][002120ec] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > >>>> ...[000011f3][002120e8][002120ec] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> > >>>> ...[000011f6][002120e4][000011f0] 50 push eax
> > >>>> ...[000011f7][002120e4][000011f0] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> > >>>> ...[000011fa][002120e0][000011f0] 51 push ecx
> > >>>> ...[000011fb][002120dc][00001200] e820feffff call 00001020
> > >>>> Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
> > >>>> ...[00001222][00102040][00102048] 83c408 add esp,+08
> > >>>> ...[00001225][00102040][00102048] 85c0 test eax,eax
> > >>>> ...[00001227][00102040][00102048] 7402 jz 0000122b
> > >>>> ...[0000122b][00102044][00001258] 5d pop ebp
> > >>>> ...[0000122c][00102048][00000000] c3 ret
> > >>>> ...[00001258][00102048][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> > >>>> ...[0000125a][0010204c][00100000] 5d pop ebp
> > >>>> ...[0000125b][00102050][00000000] c3 ret
> > >>>> Number of Instructions Executed(874)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Above is:
> > >>>> int main()
> > >>>> {
> > >>>> Q();
> > >>>> //R();
> > >>>> }
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ---
> > >>>> machine stack stack machine assembly
> > >>>> address address data code language
> > >>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= =============
> > >>>> ...[00001250][00102048][00000000] 55 push ebp
> > >>>> ...[00001251][00102048][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > >>>> ...[00001253][00102044][00001258] e8d8ffffff call 00001230
> > >>>> ...[00001230][00102040][00102048] 55 push ebp
> > >>>> ...[00001231][00102040][00102048] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > >>>> ...[00001233][0010203c][000011f0] 68f0110000 push 000011f0
> > >>>> ...[00001238][00102038][000011f0] 68f0110000 push 000011f0
> > >>>> ...[0000123d][00102034][00001242] e8defdffff call 00001020
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Begin Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:2120fc
> > >>>> Address_of_H:1020
> > >>>> ...[000011f0][002120e8][002120ec] 55 push ebp
> > >>>> ...[000011f1][002120e8][002120ec] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> > >>>> ...[000011f3][002120e8][002120ec] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> > >>>> ...[000011f6][002120e4][000011f0] 50 push eax
> > >>>> ...[000011f7][002120e4][000011f0] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> > >>>> ...[000011fa][002120e0][000011f0] 51 push ecx
> > >>>> ...[000011fb][002120dc][00001200] e820feffff call 00001020
> > >>>> Infinitely Recursive Simulation Detected Simulation Stopped
> > >>>> ...[00001242][00102040][00102048] 83c408 add esp,+08
> > >>>> ...[00001245][00102044][00001258] 5d pop ebp
> > >>>> ...[00001246][00102048][00000000] c3 ret
> > >>>> ...[00001258][00102048][00000000] 33c0 xor eax,eax
> > >>>> ...[0000125a][0010204c][00100000] 5d pop ebp
> > >>>> ...[0000125b][00102050][00000000] c3 ret
> > >>>> Number of Instructions Executed(872)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Above is:
> > >>>> int main()
> > >>>> {
> > >>>> //Q();
> > >>>> R();
> > >>>> }
> > >>>
> > >>> Right, so we're getting somewhere. Can you explain why Q()
> > >>> returns, and P(P) doesn't, when they both do the same thing in
> > >>> the same way?
> > >> int main()
> > >> {
> > >> P(P);
> > >> }
> > >>
> > >> does return.
> > >>
> > >> The correct and complete x86 emulation of its input by H(P,P)
> > >> would never reach the "ret" instruction of P because both H and
> > >> P would remain stuck in infinitely nested emulation.
> > >
> > > These last two statements of yours are a contradiction.
> > >
> > > If P(P) returns, then a CORRECT emulation of it will reach the
> > > ret instruction. An emulation that runs forever, when P(P) does
> > > not, is not a correct emulation.
> >
> > The ordinary semantics of standard C and the conventional x86
> > language are the entire semantics required to conclusively prove
> > that H(P,P) *does correctly predict*
> > that its correct and complete x86 emulation of its input would never
> > reach the "ret" instruction (final state) of this input thus never
> > halts. The correct and complete x86 emulation of its input by H
> > would never reach the "ret" instruction of P because both H and P
> > would remain stuck in infinitely nested emulation.
> >
> > I need reviewers like you so that I can *fine tune* my words.
>
> If you are saying that P(P) returns, but that a correct and complete
> x86 emulation of P(P) does not, then I think you are going to have to
> change either "correct" or "emulation" to some very different word.
>
> > A halt decider must compute the mapping from its inputs to an
> > accept or reject state on the basis of the actual behavior of these
> > actual inputs.
>
> Exactly. The actual behaviour. Not the behaviour it would have if
> things were different. In particular, you need to take into account
> H's ability to detect infinite loops.
Olcott has not shared his method for detecting infinite loops; it is
likely that he can only detect the trivial case of x86 opcodes EB FE
which isn't good enough as an "infinite loop", or more precisely
non-halting behaviour, can take many forms.
/Flibble
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-21 21:38 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-21 22:52 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-21 22:10 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-21 23:28 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-06-22 05:52 +0200
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 00:55 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 07:16 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 05:45 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 07:53 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 09:55 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 19:05 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 18:39 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 20:22 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 19:30 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 20:56 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:03 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:19 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:33 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:49 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-22 16:50 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ strawman deception ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 12:58 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ strawman deception ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 19:11 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ strawman deception ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 19:00 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ strawman deception ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 20:25 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 19:34 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:05 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-23 01:19 -0700
Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ H(P,P) versus P(P) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 13:14 -0500
Re: Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ H(P,P) versus P(P) ] Daniel Pehoushek <pehoushek1@gmail.com> - 2022-06-23 11:26 -0700
Re: Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ H(P,P) versus P(P) ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-23 19:00 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-23 23:44 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 20:38 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 00:53 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 08:07 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 09:18 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 06:34 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 09:32 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 12:07 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 10:50 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 09:09 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 11:32 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 12:46 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 11:52 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 15:55 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 10:29 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 12:42 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 12:34 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 15:20 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 16:00 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-24 20:42 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 13:25 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 16:59 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-24 23:16 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 17:25 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 16:58 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 19:12 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 21:56 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 21:50 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 23:59 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 21:01 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 23:33 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-24 22:09 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 00:24 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 00:32 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 09:28 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 10:03 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 16:09 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 10:19 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 16:21 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 10:54 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 16:59 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 11:06 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 17:25 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 11:32 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 20:12 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 14:20 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 20:33 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 13:03 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-06-25 18:31 +0200
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 11:40 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 12:59 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 09:39 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-26 00:55 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 20:07 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 02:16 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 20:36 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-26 14:40 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 19:57 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-26 21:42 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 15:53 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 20:58 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 03:03 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 05:31 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 12:15 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 11:27 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 20:00 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 14:11 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 20:26 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 14:37 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 20:43 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 14:54 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 21:15 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 15:37 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 21:40 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 15:42 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-26 15:09 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-26 14:56 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 20:01 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-26 03:14 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 05:42 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-26 13:58 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-26 16:18 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-06-22 11:11 -0600
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 13:10 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-06-22 16:10 -0600
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 17:34 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 17:37 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-23 05:20 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 13:03 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-22 20:31 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 15:27 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-22 22:20 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 16:41 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-22 22:49 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 16:58 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-23 00:01 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 18:29 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 14:53 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 17:22 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 15:48 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 18:11 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 18:02 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:16 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 18:21 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:37 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 18:44 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 21:15 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 22:22 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 21:42 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 22:52 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 19:23 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 21:46 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 19:48 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 01:28 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 22:54 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 13:52 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-24 13:05 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 15:27 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-25 04:56 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 09:10 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 15:53 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-25 09:19 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 11:29 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-25 10:21 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 12:52 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-25 11:58 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 14:15 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 20:18 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 16:11 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-25 20:15 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-25 20:24 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-25 12:33 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 14:49 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 17:35 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-26 00:28 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 20:34 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 19:54 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 19:55 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-06-25 19:56 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 19:57 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-25 14:39 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-25 19:21 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-26 00:42 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-24 23:23 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-24 17:58 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ tautology ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-24 22:00 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ truism ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:52 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 20:32 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 19:37 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 20:48 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 19:55 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-06-22 18:05 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:20 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:32 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2022-06-23 05:13 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-06-23 17:28 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 11:42 -0500
Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ H(P,P) versus P(P) ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 12:44 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:14 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:29 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:36 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 20:41 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 21:45 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 21:18 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 22:34 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 21:55 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-22 23:41 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 00:13 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 00:19 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-23 07:20 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-23 20:41 +0100
Software engineers [ not Flibble ] can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 14:56 -0500
Re: Software engineers [ not Flibble ] can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-23 20:59 +0100
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2022-06-23 16:55 -0700
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 20:38 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-23 21:59 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-23 21:10 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ full closure ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-23 22:29 -0400
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ nitwit rebuttals ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-22 15:47 -0500
Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation [ nitwit rebuttals ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-22 22:13 +0100
csiph-web