Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem |
| Message-ID | <20221009192303.00007be7@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (20 earlier) <thv1i8$h9v6$7@dont-email.me> <20221009185136.00006077@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thv21i$h9v6$8@dont-email.me> <20221009190712.000022d3@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thv2rd$16m6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corporation |
| Date | 2022-10-09 19:23 +0100 |
On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 13:10:51 -0500
olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/2022 1:07 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 12:57:05 -0500
> > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/9/2022 12:51 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 12:48:55 -0500
> >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/9/2022 12:30 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 12:22:57 -0500
> >>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 10/9/2022 12:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 12:14:39 -0500
> >>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 10/9/2022 12:10 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 12:00:46 -0500
> >>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 10/9/2022 11:49 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 11:46:10 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/9/2022 11:39 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 10:48:51 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/9/2022 10:40 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 09:32:54 -0500
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/9/2022 6:25 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/22 11:31 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2022 9:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/22 10:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2022 8:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/22 9:22 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2022 7:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/22 8:18 PM, olcott wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Once one accepts the notion of a simulating
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider that continues to correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate its input until it correctly
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determines that the this simulated input
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would never stop running then the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional halting problem proofs are
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refuted.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Except that your decider DOESN'T simulate
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> until it CORRECT decides that the ACTUAL
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input will never halts, but stops when a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DIFFERENT input is shown to not halt.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *straw man*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> An intentionally misrepresented proposition
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is set up because it is easier to defeat
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than an opponent's real argument.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/straw_man
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strawman deception try again using the exact
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> words that I actually said.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which isn't what I did, so you are just shown to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be a LIAR.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // P does the opposite of whatever H decides
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> void P(ptr x)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status) // if H(P,P)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reports that its input halts HERE: goto HERE;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // P loops and never halts return;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> // else P halts }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are asserting that the simulation of P by H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would eventually stop running on its own without
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being aborted by H?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, THAT is the strawman.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am asserting that the CORRECT simulation of P
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would eventually reach a final state,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *You changed the words again*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are asserting that the simulation
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of P by H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of P by H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of P by H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of P by H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of P by H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would eventually stop running on its own without
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being aborted by H?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, that's YOUR strawman.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you knew anything about logic you would understand
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this is a premise: *Once one accepts the notion
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of a simulating halt decider*
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One is not allowed to reject the premise. One is only
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowed to verify that the conclusion follows from
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the premise.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SHD can only refute halting problem proofs if it is a
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure function;
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, it took me three full time months to convert H
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> into a pure function. I merely apply the exact same
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> infinite recursion criteria that is used to compute
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the halt status of:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion(N);
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet I apply this criteria immediately before recursive
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation actually occurs. When H recognizes that P is
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> about to call H in recursive simulation H aborts its
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation of P before its first call to H is ever
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> invoked.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If your H is a pure function and H(P,P) returns 0 then
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) called from P(P) would also return 0
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> <sarcasm>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Sure because everyone knows that a function that is never
> >>>>>>>>>>>> invoked must still return a value in the same way we must
> >>>>>>>>>>>> be able to start the engine of a car that has no engine.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> </sarcasm>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) called from P(P) is the FIRST invocation of H(P,P)
> >>>>>>>>>>> so is invoked, i.e. main() calling P(P) instead of H(P,P).
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Your H is not a halt decider as it gets the halting
> >>>>>>>>>>> decision wrong.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Turing computable functions are not allowed to compute the
> >>>>>>>>>> mapping of non-inputs or anything that cannot be encoded
> >>>>>>>>>> as a finite string. That you fail to understand this is
> >>>>>>>>>> not any rebuttal of what I have said.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> If H is a pure function and H(P,P) returns 0 then if P(P) is
> >>>>>>>>> called from main() P(P) will halt which means H got the
> >>>>>>>>> halting decision wrong meaning H is not a halt decider.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> You continue to fail to understand that Turing computable
> >>>>>>>> functions are not allowed to consider the behavior of
> >>>>>>>> non-inputs. That you fail to understand this is not any error
> >>>>>>>> on my part.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> English is ambiguous, lets try code instead:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> int main()
> >>>>>>> {
> >>>>>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H(P, P));
> >>>>>>> P(P);
> >>>>>>> Output("P(P) halted ergo H(P, P) should have returned
> >>>>>>> 1"); }
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Given the above it is obvious to all that H is not a halt
> >>>>>>> decider.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The correct simulation of the input to H(P,P) by H is known to
> >>>>>> be the behavior that H must measure on the basis that the
> >>>>>> correct simulation of a machine description is known to
> >>>>>> provide the actual behavior of this machine description.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What you are saying rejects the notion of a UTM.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What I am saying is that programs are designed to be run rather
> >>>>> than just analyzed by a halt decider.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> P(P) halts does it not? i.e. the following PROGRAM halts:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> int main()
> >>>>> {
> >>>>> P(P);
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You claim that H is a pure function and that H(P,P) returns 0
> >>>>> ergo your H gets the halting decision wrong so is not a halt
> >>>>> decider.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> /Flibble
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> H1(P,P) specifies a different sequence of configurations than
> >>>> H(P,P) thus the value that H1 returns can vary from what H(P,P)
> >>>> returns.
> >>>>
> >>>> When one simply assumes that pathological self-reference has no
> >>>> effect on a sequence of configurations one is proven to be
> >>>> incorrect.
> >>>
> >>> P(P) is still calling H not this mysterious H1 you have just
> >>> invented. Your H gets the halting decision wrong so is not a halt
> >>> decider.
> >>>
> >>> /Flibble
> >>>
> >> H1(P,P) reports on the behavior of int main() { P(P); }
> >> H(P,P) is not allowed to report on the behavior of int main() {
> >> P(P); }
> >>
> >
> > Given:
> >
> > int main()
> > {
> > H(P,P);
> > }
> >
> > H(P,P) is NOT deciding on main() but on P(P) so why would there be a
> > mysterious H1 deciding on main()?
> >
>
> There is no mystery, H1 is an exact copy of H, yet does not have the
> pathological self-reference relationship with P. H1 is included in
> this project.
>
> Complete halt deciding system (Visual Studio Project)
> (a) x86utm operating system
> (b) x86 emulator adapted from libx86emu to compile under Windows
> (c) Several halt deciders and their sample inputs contained within
> Halt7.c https://liarparadox.org/2022_09_07.zip
If H1 is an exact copy of H and H is a pure function then:
int main()
{
H1(P,P); // returns 1
H(P,P); // returns 0
}
This contradiction is proof that do do not have a working halt decider
and that you have not refuted the halting problem proofs.
/Flibble
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-08 19:18 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-08 19:29 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-08 20:49 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-08 20:22 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-08 21:43 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-08 21:00 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-08 22:44 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-08 22:31 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 07:25 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-09 09:32 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 16:40 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-09 10:48 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 17:25 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 11:40 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 17:43 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 17:39 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 11:46 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 17:49 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 12:00 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 18:10 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-09 12:14 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 18:18 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 12:22 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 18:30 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 12:48 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 18:51 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 12:57 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 19:07 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-09 13:10 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 19:12 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 13:18 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 19:23 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 13:28 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 19:31 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-09 13:40 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 19:44 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 14:03 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-10-09 20:06 +0100
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 14:39 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 13:51 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 15:03 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@KVI.nl> - 2022-10-10 10:25 +0200
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 10:37 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 18:57 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 10:41 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 14:52 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 14:09 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 15:23 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 14:33 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 15:38 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 14:49 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 20:53 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-10-09 14:13 +0300
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 07:26 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-10-09 09:23 +0000
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 15:29 +0200
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-09 14:32 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 15:47 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-09 15:17 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-09 16:32 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 13:42 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 18:47 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 18:25 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 19:45 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> - 2022-10-10 19:06 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 20:16 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 21:30 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 23:00 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 22:18 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 23:34 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 21:24 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 22:44 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 21:59 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem, Tarski and Gödel Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 23:14 -0400
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Kaz Kylheku <864-117-4973@kylheku.com> - 2022-10-09 20:43 +0000
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-10-10 12:05 -0500
Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-10-10 19:06 -0400
csiph-web