Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | olcott <none-ya@beez-waxes.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: Simulating halt deciders refute the halting theorem |
| Date | 2022-10-09 13:40 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <thv4jp$1ef$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (22 earlier) <20221009190712.000022d3@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thv2rd$16m6$1@gioia.aioe.org> <20221009192303.00007be7@reddwarf.jmc.corp> <thv3ro$h9v6$10@dont-email.me> <20221009193129.00006a85@reddwarf.jmc.corp> |
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.
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer
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