Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation

Path	csiph.com!1.us.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer01.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!peer01.ams1!peer.ams1.xlned.com!news.xlned.com!peer01.ams4!peer.am4.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!fx04.ams4.POSTED!not-for-mail
From	Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc>
Newsgroups	comp.theory, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.logic, sci.math
Subject	Re: Technically competent Software engineers can verify this halting problem proof refutation
Message-ID	<20220626121534.00007e30@reddwarf.jmc> (permalink)
References	<EOydnaeszcdfHS__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <PtvsK.300027$5fVf.158200@fx09.iad> <CaWdnZEntLawFS__nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <ccb8af3c-e497-4d6e-8040-826a4e87a6e7n@googlegroups.com> <g9qdnRjZj9uBlS7_nZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> <0f7ed34c-5aaa-4858-885e-66e16777f599n@googlegroups.com> <87a6a44s02.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <a9adde1d-ad2c-444c-9b14-88841f5e8783n@googlegroups.com> <87sfnv2e6e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <3a337f21-4828-46c4-b5be-87c76cff9db4n@googlegroups.com> <878rplyhj6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <b6163094-01b0-4bb4-a3b1-4e48457527a0n@googlegroups.com> <87fsjtwvut.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <b2699d2d-40be-4e9b-9612-efb7121d5a8bn@googlegroups.com> <87k094uwkw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> <SbudnW2JfoTdICr_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> <20220626030328.00007922@reddwarf.jmc> <R8WdnXqc7LIHqCX_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com>
Organization	Jupiter Mining Corp
X-Newsreader	Claws Mail 3.17.8 (GTK+ 2.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32)
MIME-Version	1.0
Content-Type	text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding	7bit
Lines	139
X-Complaints-To	abuse@eweka.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date	Sun, 26 Jun 2022 11:15:30 UTC
Date	Sun, 26 Jun 2022 12:15:34 +0100
X-Received-Bytes	7897
Xref	csiph.com comp.theory:53005 comp.ai.philosophy:28180 sci.logic:241227 sci.math:568350

Cross-posted to 4 groups.

Show key headers only | View raw

On Sun, 26 Jun 2022 05:31:53 -0500
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:

> On 6/25/2022 9:03 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sat, 25 Jun 2022 20:58:23 -0500
> > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 6/25/2022 6:55 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:  
> >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>      
> >>>> On Friday, 24 June 2022 at 23:16:30 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:  
> >>>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>>>>     
> >>>>>> "Dry run" means that a human programmer looks at the code, and
> >>>>>> determines what it does, without actually executing it.  
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Going back, now, to what you think needs to be resolved:
> >>>>> | He's dry-run P(P) and established that it doesn't halt. He's
> >>>>> invoked H | on it and H reports that it doesn't halt. He's run
> >>>>> P(P) and it halts. The obvious conclusion is that PO's dry run
> >>>>> (if he has indeed done such a thing) is incorrect.
> >>>>>     
> >>>> Exactly.
> >>>> We do our little energy budget on tigers, and find that tigers
> >>>> spend more energy than they take in. Well potentially this is
> >>>> dynamite. One explanation is that the law of conservation of
> >>>> energy is wrong. Except, before we countenance that explanation,
> >>>> we need to rule out a much simpler explanation. Which is that our
> >>>> measurements are wrong.  
> >>>
> >>> Obviously.
> >>>      
> >>>> Similarly, PO has worked out what he thinks P(P) should be doing,
> >>>> by dry-running it, and then actually run P(P) and obtained a
> >>>> different result. He also found that H agreed with the dry run.
> >>>> It's hard to paraphrase his conclusion, but it is extensive and
> >>>> far-reaching in its implications.  
> >>>
> >>> He is just waffling.  There is no conclusion, just a constant
> >>> twisting and turning to find some why to persuade people that the
> >>> wrong answer is the right one.  He's being doing this for years
> >>> with various degrees of obfuscation.
> >>>
> >>> H does not report the correct result for P(P) and PO is putting up
> >>> anything he can think of to keep the discussion going.  It should
> >>> simply have stopped once he'd been clear that H(P,P) == 0 is
> >>> correct "even though P(P) halts" but the traces and the verbiage
> >>> is keeping people keen.  
> >>>> The behaviour of code when run is different from the
> >>>> correct behaviour of the code when simulated. If that's true,
> >>>> then it has similar implications for computer science that
> >>>> disproving the conservation law has for physics.  
> >>>
> >>> When a student comes to me and says that her program to add 5 and
> >>> 6 gives 12, I don't, even for a moment, imagine that the laws of
> >>> logic and mathematics are in doubt.
> >>>      
> >>>> But the obvious explanation is that the dry-run was incorrect.
> >>>> Lots of people have suggested why it is incorrect. But they can't
> >>>> actually see the code. PO needs to understand that no-one will
> >>>> accept the complicated, far-reaching explanation, until the
> >>>> simple explanation has been ruled out.  
> >>>
> >>> For what it's worth, I don't think there is any "dry run" going on
> >>> here at all.  PO decide years ago that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) would be 0
> >>> because he knew (correctly) that H could spot what would happen if
> >>> H did not "intervene".  Everything since then -- the "it only halt
> >>> because...", the "it wouldn't halt if line 15 were commented out"
> >>> and the rather less explicitly stated "H_Hat does not get to its
> >>> ret instruction because a non top-level H aborts" are just the
> >>> various attempt at after-the-fact justification.
> >>>
> >>> I agree it's never quite so simple because PO is usually fractally
> >>> wrong, so he's not correct about almost everything he says at
> >>> almost every level.  For example, at one level he now admits that
> >>> a halt decider is impossible because H(X,Y) must report "on its
> >>> input" and the call X(Y) is not an input!  He did this to explain
> >>> why H(P,P) is permitted to return 0 "even though P(P) halts", but
> >>> it also makes it clear that what he one thought was that halting
> >>> problem is not solvable.  
> >>
> >> YOU KNOW THAT THIS IS TRUE
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> BECAUSE THIS IS PROVABLY TRUE
> >> P(P) is provably not the actual behavior of the actual input.
> >>
> >> YOU ARE THE ONE FUDGING WITH THE TRUTH  
> >   
> > The issue is what constitutes a pathological input: the pathological
> > input at issue here are YOUR PATHOLOGICAL LIES, Olcott.
> > 
> > /Flibble
> >   
> 
>       Computable functions are the basic objects of study in 
> computability theory.
>       Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
> intuitive notion of
>       algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there 
> exists an algorithm
>       that can do the job of the function, i.e. given an input of the 
> function domain it
>       can return the corresponding output.
>       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
> 
> void P(u32 x)
> {
>    if (H(x, x))
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)P, (u32)P));
> }
> 
> That you reject that the above proves that H and P have a
> pathological relationship to each other seem to be your lack of
> technical competence rather than dishonesty.
 
There is nothing wrong with my technical competence however yours *is*
suspect.

Nobody is denying that P is pathological input as its comes
from [Strachey, 1965]'s "Impossible Program"; the problem is you
are redefining what H means such that P no longer calls H as you prevent
that call which is equivalent to H behaving differently depending on
what is calling it: valid halt deciders don't do that.  Your H is
erroneous and certainly *not* a pure function as you claim.

Your basic error (which you keep repeating) is your assumption that a
program that calls H is always pathological.

/Flibble

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