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 | <20221009200652.0000792d@reddwarf.jmc.corp> (permalink) |
| References | (21 earlier) <thv3ro$h9v6$10@dont-email.me> <20221009193129.00006a85@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thv4jp$1ef$1@gioia.aioe.org> <20221009194440.00004480@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thv5uo$h9v6$12@dont-email.me> |
| Organization | Jupiter Mining Corporation |
| Date | 2022-10-09 20:06 +0100 |
On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 14:03:50 -0500
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/9/2022 1:44 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 13:40:56 -0500
> > olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/9/2022 1:31 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 13:28:07 -0500
> >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 10/9/2022 1:23 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> >>>>> 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
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It can be easily verified that the correctly simulated behavior
> >>>> that H1 sees is different behavior than the correctly simulated
> >>>> behavior that H sees because of the pathological self-reference
> >>>> relationship between H and P.
> >>>>
> >>>> A function must always return the same value for the same inputs.
> >>>> Different functions can return different values for the same
> >>>> inputs. Add(2,3) returns a different value than Multiply(2,3).
> >>>
> >>> If H1 is an exact copy of H and H is a pure function then H1
> >>> should return the same result for the same input as H;
> >>
> >> P calls H and P does not call H1 this changes the behavior of P
> >> relative to H and H1. H recognizes that its correct simulation of P
> >> would never stop running unless H aborts this simulation.
> >
> > A pure function ALWAYS returns the SAME result for the SAME
> > arguments so an EXACT COPY of such a pure function should behave
> > the SAME as what it is a copy of.
>
> P only calls H and does not call H1.
If H1 is an exact copy of H and H is a pure function then it doesn't
matter if P calls H or H1, the result should be the same. I suspect
you are lying/mistaken about either H being a pure function of H1 being
an exact copy of H.
>
> Assuming that a pathological self-reference relationship has no
> effect on the resulting sequence of configurations seems ridiculously
> stupid when it can be easily empirically verified that it does have
> this effect.
I suggest you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_function
/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