Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #118730 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-05-12 13:17 -0500 |
| Last post | 2025-05-15 12:41 +0200 |
| Articles | 15 on this page of 215 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 13:17 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 14:20 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 13:27 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 15:53 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 15:17 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 16:29 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 16:12 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 17:39 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 16:46 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 17:54 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 17:28 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 18:30 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 17:41 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 19:24 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 18:36 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 19:40 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 18:53 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 20:12 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 19:25 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 20:27 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 19:34 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 20:36 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 19:56 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 21:00 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 20:06 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 21:15 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 21:45 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 21:01 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 22:22 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 00:25 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 06:11 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 00:22 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-05-13 08:44 +0000
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 10:02 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 07:15 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 11:28 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-05-13 09:09 +0000
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 21:46 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 22:58 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 22:22 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 23:31 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 00:14 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-13 13:43 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 07:23 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 00:02 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Complete Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 00:03 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Complete Closure "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-13 13:38 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Complete Closure Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 07:33 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-12 22:54 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-05-13 09:18 +0000
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-13 13:43 +0300
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-12 21:30 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:47 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 23:50 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 23:28 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-14 13:24 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:40 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 13:13 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:00 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:55 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:54 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 21:47 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-15 10:44 +0300
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-15 22:10 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-16 12:05 +0300
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-16 10:02 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 08:26 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:16 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:46 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 15:52 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:22 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:53 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:58 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:28 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 20:34 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-15 10:51 +0300
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-15 22:17 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 23:26 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:01 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:54 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:54 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 08:25 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-12 21:27 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 21:53 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 00:05 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 23:52 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-13 13:33 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 19:41 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:03 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 07:43 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 16:30 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-05-13 21:39 +0000
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 16:52 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 18:35 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-05-14 14:26 +0000
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:04 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 13:10 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 18:33 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:07 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 20:27 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:31 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 20:48 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:54 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 20:57 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:59 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:47 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:50 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:25 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 23:36 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:20 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:45 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:51 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:01 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:25 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:57 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 18:01 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:20 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 20:32 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 19:34 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 20:45 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 14:31 -0700
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:08 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:43 -0700
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 18:57 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 13:04 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-05-15 00:39 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 18:52 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:11 -0700
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 19:24 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-05-15 01:48 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 20:01 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 13:01 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-05-15 03:08 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 21:22 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 21:23 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 23:08 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 23:11 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-15 07:08 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 23:06 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 23:07 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 12:55 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-15 07:12 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-05-15 01:36 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 19:47 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 12:52 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 00:29 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-16 22:06 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 15:29 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-16 18:03 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 17:39 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-16 20:38 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 19:49 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-16 22:50 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 22:08 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-17 11:03 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Dishonest reviewers olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 13:45 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Dishonest reviewers Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-17 16:01 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Dishonest reviewers Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-18 12:24 +0300
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Dishonest reviewers "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-18 12:15 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-17 09:08 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 10:36 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-17 15:51 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike's key mistake Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-18 12:35 +0300
Mike's big mistake about DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-15 21:39 -0500
Re: Mike's big mistake about DD simulated by HHH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-16 22:03 +0200
Re: Mike's big mistake about DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 16:10 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-16 12:26 +0300
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 09:47 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-17 11:55 +0300
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-05-17 15:27 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-17 11:09 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 10:31 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-17 15:54 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 15:05 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-17 16:10 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 15:18 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-17 16:34 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 15:16 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-17 16:31 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 16:00 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-17 19:35 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-05-17 23:56 +0000
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 19:05 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-18 12:26 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-18 07:15 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-18 07:14 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-17 19:00 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-18 12:22 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- Mike my best reviewer Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-18 07:20 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:15 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-05-14 14:32 +0000
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:11 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met --- WDH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 12:47 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 08:54 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:22 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:44 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:50 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 15:57 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:23 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:54 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 18:00 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:37 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 20:36 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 22:32 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:10 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 23:17 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:25 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 20:34 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:42 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-14 13:19 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:48 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 13:15 +0200
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:27 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:37 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 12:41 +0200
Page 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 18:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <10033p2$2mbr6$17@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119114 |
On 5/14/2025 5:54 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2025 4:23 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/14/2025 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2025 3:50 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2025 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2025 6:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/25 9:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-12 18:17:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
>>>>>>>>> by Michael Sipser (Author)
>>>>>>>>> 4.4 out of 5 stars 568 rating
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-
>>>>>>>>> Sipser/ dp/113318779X
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
>>>>>>>>> named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
>>>>>>>>> that this criteria has been met:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>>>>>>> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>>>>>>>> would never stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This specifies two requirements:
>>>>>>>> 1. H correctly simulates that part of the behaviour of D that
>>>>>>>> starts
>>>>>>>> from the start of the execution and does not end before the second
>>>>>>>> requirement is satisfied.
>>>>>>>> 2. H correctly determines that unsimulated part of the behaviour is
>>>>>>>> infinitely long.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The second reuirement is not satisfied when HHH analyses the above
>>>>>>>> DD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words you believe that DD will halt
>>>>>>> on its own without ever being aborted by HHH.
>>>>>>> That is counter-factual.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>>> [00002133] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002134] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
>>>>>>> [00002136] 51 push ecx ; make space for local
>>>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
>>>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH determines that DD correctly simulated by
>>>>>>> HHH keeps calling HHH(DD) until HHH aborts this
>>>>>>> simulation and rejects DD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But that wasn't the criteria.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It was DD correctly simulated PERIOD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> THERE IS NO PERIOD.
>>>>> THE SPEC REQUIRES A PARTIAL SIMULATION OF SOME INPUTS.
>>>>
>>>> Simulation is not a requirement,
>>>
>>> Yes it is a requirement of the above spec.
>>
>> That Sipser did not agree to:
>>
>
> I simply state the actual facts:
> *THESE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE MEANING*
>
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
> would never stop running unless aborted then
>
> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>
>
False:
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that UTM(D)
would never stop running unless aborted then
Which is what anyone familiar with the halting problem would think, as
that is what is compatible with the requirements:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X
described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 17:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10035uj$2mtsb$12@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119118 |
On 5/14/2025 5:00 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 5/14/2025 5:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/14/2025 4:23 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2025 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2025 3:50 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2025 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 6:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/25 9:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-12 18:17:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
>>>>>>>>>> by Michael Sipser (Author)
>>>>>>>>>> 4.4 out of 5 stars 568 rating
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-
>>>>>>>>>> Michael- Sipser/ dp/113318779X
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
>>>>>>>>>> named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
>>>>>>>>>> that this criteria has been met:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
>>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>>>>>>>> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>>>>>>>>> would never stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This specifies two requirements:
>>>>>>>>> 1. H correctly simulates that part of the behaviour of D that
>>>>>>>>> starts
>>>>>>>>> from the start of the execution and does not end before the second
>>>>>>>>> requirement is satisfied.
>>>>>>>>> 2. H correctly determines that unsimulated part of the
>>>>>>>>> behaviour is
>>>>>>>>> infinitely long.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The second reuirement is not satisfied when HHH analyses the above
>>>>>>>>> DD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In other words you believe that DD will halt
>>>>>>>> on its own without ever being aborted by HHH.
>>>>>>>> That is counter-factual.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>>>> [00002133] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [00002134] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>> [00002136] 51 push ecx ; make space for local
>>>>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
>>>>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HHH determines that DD correctly simulated by
>>>>>>>> HHH keeps calling HHH(DD) until HHH aborts this
>>>>>>>> simulation and rejects DD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But that wasn't the criteria.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was DD correctly simulated PERIOD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> THERE IS NO PERIOD.
>>>>>> THE SPEC REQUIRES A PARTIAL SIMULATION OF SOME INPUTS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Simulation is not a requirement,
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is a requirement of the above spec.
>>>
>>> That Sipser did not agree to:
>>>
>>
>> I simply state the actual facts:
>> *THESE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE MEANING*
>>
>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>> would never stop running unless aborted then
>>
>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>
>>
>
> False:
>
>
> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
> input D until H correctly determines that UTM(D)
> would never stop running unless aborted then
>
>
> Which is what anyone familiar with the halting problem would think, as
> that is what is compatible with the requirements:
>
Any stupid person that does not pay attention might think that.
*until H correctly determines that its simulated D*
*would never stop running unless aborted*
UTM(D) is not "its simulated D"
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 20:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1003cu4$2p0vu$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119128 |
On 5/14/2025 6:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/14/2025 5:00 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/14/2025 5:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/14/2025 4:23 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/14/2025 4:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/14/2025 3:50 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/14/2025 6:22 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/25 9:54 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 2:41 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-05-12 18:17:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
>>>>>>>>>>> by Michael Sipser (Author)
>>>>>>>>>>> 4.4 out of 5 stars 568 rating
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael- Sipser/ dp/113318779X
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
>>>>>>>>>>> named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
>>>>>>>>>>> that this criteria has been met:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
>>>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>>>>>>>>> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>>>>>>>>>> would never stop running unless aborted then
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This specifies two requirements:
>>>>>>>>>> 1. H correctly simulates that part of the behaviour of D that
>>>>>>>>>> starts
>>>>>>>>>> from the start of the execution and does not end before the
>>>>>>>>>> second
>>>>>>>>>> requirement is satisfied.
>>>>>>>>>> 2. H correctly determines that unsimulated part of the
>>>>>>>>>> behaviour is
>>>>>>>>>> infinitely long.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The second reuirement is not satisfied when HHH analyses the
>>>>>>>>>> above
>>>>>>>>>> DD.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In other words you believe that DD will halt
>>>>>>>>> on its own without ever being aborted by HHH.
>>>>>>>>> That is counter-factual.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> _DD()
>>>>>>>>> [00002133] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002134] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
>>>>>>>>> [00002136] 51 push ecx ; make space for local
>>>>>>>>> [00002137] 6833210000 push 00002133 ; push DD
>>>>>>>>> [0000213c] e882f4ffff call 000015c3 ; call HHH(DD)
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HHH determines that DD correctly simulated by
>>>>>>>>> HHH keeps calling HHH(DD) until HHH aborts this
>>>>>>>>> simulation and rejects DD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But that wasn't the criteria.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was DD correctly simulated PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> THERE IS NO PERIOD.
>>>>>>> THE SPEC REQUIRES A PARTIAL SIMULATION OF SOME INPUTS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Simulation is not a requirement,
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes it is a requirement of the above spec.
>>>>
>>>> That Sipser did not agree to:
>>>>
>>>
>>> I simply state the actual facts:
>>> *THESE WORDS ONLY HAVE ONE MEANING*
>>>
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>> would never stop running unless aborted then
>>>
>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> False:
>>
>>
>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>> input D until H correctly determines that UTM(D)
>> would never stop running unless aborted then
>>
>>
>> Which is what anyone familiar with the halting problem would think, as
>> that is what is compatible with the requirements:
>>
>
> Any stupid person that does not pay attention might think that.
No one but you would think it means anything else but what the
requirements state:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X
described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the
following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 22:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <100325m$2n1is$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119087 |
On 14/05/2025 21:50, dbush wrote: > On 5/14/2025 11:44 AM, olcott wrote: <snip> >> THE SPEC REQUIRES A PARTIAL SIMULATION OF SOME INPUTS. > > Simulation is not a requirement, merely an implementation detail. > Mapping the halting function is the requirement: I think Mr Olcott sees simulation as a requirement, if not /the/ requirement. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 17:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10034c9$2mtsb$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119110 |
On 5/14/2025 4:32 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 14/05/2025 21:50, dbush wrote: >> On 5/14/2025 11:44 AM, olcott wrote: > > <snip> > >>> THE SPEC REQUIRES A PARTIAL SIMULATION OF SOME INPUTS. >> >> Simulation is not a requirement, merely an implementation detail. >> Mapping the halting function is the requirement: > > I think Mr Olcott sees simulation as a requirement, if not /the/ > requirement. > IT IS REQUIRED BY THE REFERENCED SPEC YOU NITWIT !!! -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 23:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <10034qn$2n3m4$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119122 |
On 14/05/2025 23:10, olcott wrote: <snip> > YOU NITWIT !!! Stellar reasoning. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 17:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <100359g$2mtsb$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119110 |
On 5/14/2025 4:32 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 14/05/2025 21:50, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/14/2025 11:44 AM, olcott wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
>>> THE SPEC REQUIRES A PARTIAL SIMULATION OF SOME INPUTS.
>>
>> Simulation is not a requirement, merely an implementation detail.
>> Mapping the halting function is the requirement:
>
> I think Mr Olcott sees simulation as a requirement, if not /the/
> requirement.
>
This whole post and every single message is only
about how HHH/DDD and HHH/DD meet the EXACT WORDS
OF THE ABOVE SPEC. All divergence from this was
a dishonest dodge.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 20:34 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1003cpp$2p0vu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119125 |
On 5/14/2025 6:25 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/14/2025 4:32 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 14/05/2025 21:50, dbush wrote: >>> On 5/14/2025 11:44 AM, olcott wrote: >> >> <snip> >> > > <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> > If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its > input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D > would never stop running unless aborted then > >>>> THE SPEC REQUIRES A PARTIAL SIMULATION OF SOME INPUTS. >>> >>> Simulation is not a requirement, merely an implementation detail. >>> Mapping the halting function is the requirement: >> >> I think Mr Olcott sees simulation as a requirement, if not /the/ >> requirement. >> > > This whole post and every single message is only > about how HHH/DDD and HHH/DD meet the EXACT WORDS > OF THE ABOVE SPEC. All divergence from this was > a dishonest dodge. > > HHH doesn't even meet the prerequisites since halt deciders work with algorithms and your HHH does not and therefore has nothing to do with the halting problem, as you have admitted: On 5/13/2025 9:54 PM, dbush wrote: > On 5/13/2025 9:48 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/13/2025 8:31 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 5/13/2025 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2025 8:07 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2025 5:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/13/2025 6:43 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/13/25 12:52 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted* >>>>>>>> or they themselves could become non-terminating. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But you aren't simulating the same PROGRAM D that the original >>>>>>> was given. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It is not supposed to be the same program. >>>>> >>>>> So you *explicitly* admit to changing the input. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The finite string of DD is specific sequence bytes. >>> >>> Which includes the specific sequence of bytes that is the finite >>> string HHH >>> >> >> No it does not. A function calls is not macro inclusion. >> > > Then you admit that your HHH not deciding about algorithms and therefore > has nothing to do with the halting problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-13 22:42 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10013fp$2a1j4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #118730 |
On 5/12/2025 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
> by Michael Sipser (Author)
> 4.4 out of 5 stars 568 rating
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/
> dp/113318779X
>
> int DD()
> {
> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
> if (Halt_Status)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return Halt_Status;
> }
>
> DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
> named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
> that this criteria has been met:
>
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
> would never stop running unless aborted then
>
> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>
People tried for more than a year to get away with saying
that DDD was not emulated by HHH correctly until I stipulated
that DDD is emulated by HHH according to the rules of the
x86 language. Then they shut up about this.
People tried to get away with saying that HHH
cannot not decide halting on the basis of
*simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
until I pointed out that those exact words are in the spec.
People tried to get away with saying that the correct
emulation of a non-halting input cannot be partial
Yet partial simulation is right in the spec:
*H correctly simulates its input D until*
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 13:19 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1001u7c$2fl5b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #118975 |
Op 14.mei.2025 om 05:42 schreef olcott:
> On 5/12/2025 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
>> by Michael Sipser (Author)
>> 4.4 out of 5 stars 568 rating
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/
>> dp/113318779X
>>
>> int DD()
>> {
>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>> if (Halt_Status)
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
>> named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
>> that this criteria has been met:
>>
>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>> would never stop running unless aborted then
>>
>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>
>
> People tried for more than a year to get away with saying
> that DDD was not emulated by HHH correctly until I stipulated
> that DDD is emulated by HHH according to the rules of the
> x86 language. Then they shut up about this.
Olcott tried to get away by claiming that his simulator follows the
rules of the x86 language, but he ignores the proofs that the x86
language was violated with a premature abort. He always ignores proofs
that disturb his dreams.
>
> People tried to get away with saying that HHH
> cannot not decide halting on the basis of
> *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
> until I pointed out that those exact words are in the spec.
Olcott tries to get away with a vague vacuous statement, but he ignores
all refutations that says that if the condition 'unless aborted' is
present, the input specifies a halting program. He always ignores
refutations that disturb his dreams.
>
> People tried to get away with saying that the correct
> emulation of a non-halting input cannot be partial
> Yet partial simulation is right in the spec:
> *H correctly simulates its input D until*
Olcott tries to get away with a partial simulation, even when it has
been proven that this partial simulation skips the most important part
of the input, the part that contains the code for the abort.
He always ignores all reactions that disturb is dreams.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 10:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1002dvp$2i4bk$15@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #118996 |
On 5/14/2025 6:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 14.mei.2025 om 05:42 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/12/2025 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
>>> by Michael Sipser (Author)
>>> 4.4 out of 5 stars 568 rating
>>>
>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-
>>> Sipser/ dp/113318779X
>>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>> return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
>>> named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
>>> that this criteria has been met:
>>>
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>> would never stop running unless aborted then
>>>
>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>
>>
>> People tried for more than a year to get away with saying
>> that DDD was not emulated by HHH correctly until I stipulated
>> that DDD is emulated by HHH according to the rules of the
>> x86 language. Then they shut up about this.
>
> Olcott tried to get away by claiming that his simulator follows the
> rules of the x86 language, but he ignores the proofs that the x86
> language was violated with a premature abort.
>
*THE SPEC REQUIRES THIS PREMATURE ABORT*
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
*correctly simulates its input D until*
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-15 13:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1004id3$331gh$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119030 |
Op 14.mei.2025 om 17:48 schreef olcott:
> On 5/14/2025 6:19 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 14.mei.2025 om 05:42 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/12/2025 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
>>>> by Michael Sipser (Author)
>>>> 4.4 out of 5 stars 568 rating
>>>>
>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-
>>>> Sipser/ dp/113318779X
>>>>
>>>> int DD()
>>>> {
>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
>>>> named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
>>>> that this criteria has been met:
>>>>
>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>>> would never stop running unless aborted then
>>>>
>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>
>>>
>>> People tried for more than a year to get away with saying
>>> that DDD was not emulated by HHH correctly until I stipulated
>>> that DDD is emulated by HHH according to the rules of the
>>> x86 language. Then they shut up about this.
>>
>> Olcott tried to get away by claiming that his simulator follows the
>> rules of the x86 language, but he ignores the proofs that the x86
>> language was violated with a premature abort.
>
> *THE SPEC REQUIRES THIS PREMATURE ABORT*
Please cite the page of the specs of the x86 language where you read
this. You can't.
Please face the facts, not your dreams. Come out of rebuttal mode. Try
to think!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 07:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0754c526b05716e5e562dba291033f9be50e7109@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #118975 |
On 5/13/25 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/12/2025 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>> Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
>> by Michael Sipser (Author)
>> 4.4 out of 5 stars 568 rating
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-Sipser/
>> dp/113318779X
>>
>> int DD()
>> {
>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>> if (Halt_Status)
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
>> named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
>> that this criteria has been met:
>>
>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>> would never stop running unless aborted then
>>
>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>
>
> People tried for more than a year to get away with saying
> that DDD was not emulated by HHH correctly until I stipulated
> that DDD is emulated by HHH according to the rules of the
> x86 language. Then they shut up about this.
>
> People tried to get away with saying that HHH
> cannot not decide halting on the basis of
> *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
> until I pointed out that those exact words are in the spec.
>
> People tried to get away with saying that the correct
> emulation of a non-halting input cannot be partial
> Yet partial simulation is right in the spec:
> *H correctly simulates its input D until*
>
>
Right, "Correct Simulations" can never be partial.
Partial Simulations can be partial.
Deciders can use Partial Simulations, if they do it correctly.
But to do so, they need to show that the ACTUAL CORRECT SIMULATION of
this EXACT input, which needs to represent a PROGRAM, would never halt.
Since your DDD as defined isn't a program, you just error out on a
category error.
If we fix that by including HHH into the code, then your HHH errors out
by not correctly determining what the correct simulation of the exact
input (which calls the HHH that does the abort, since that is what you
ended up using) which will halt.
All you are doing is just proving that you are nothing but a
pathological liar that doesn't know, and can't learn, the meaning of the
words you use.
Sorry, but you have sunk your own battleship by basing your "logic" on
your lies, and refusing to learn the meaning of the words you use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-14 10:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1002dbi$2i4bk$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119004 |
On 5/14/2025 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/13/25 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/12/2025 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
>>> by Michael Sipser (Author)
>>> 4.4 out of 5 stars 568 rating
>>>
>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-
>>> Sipser/ dp/113318779X
>>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>> return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
>>> named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
>>> that this criteria has been met:
>>>
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>> would never stop running unless aborted then
>>>
>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>
>>
>> People tried for more than a year to get away with saying
>> that DDD was not emulated by HHH correctly until I stipulated
>> that DDD is emulated by HHH according to the rules of the
>> x86 language. Then they shut up about this.
>>
>> People tried to get away with saying that HHH
>> cannot not decide halting on the basis of
>> *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
>> until I pointed out that those exact words are in the spec.
>>
>> People tried to get away with saying that the correct
>> emulation of a non-halting input cannot be partial
>> Yet partial simulation is right in the spec:
>> *H correctly simulates its input D until*
>>
>>
>
> Right, "Correct Simulations" can never be partial.
>
> Partial Simulations can be partial.
>
> Deciders can use Partial Simulations, if they do it correctly.
>
> But to do so, they need to show that the ACTUAL CORRECT SIMULATION of
> this EXACT input, which needs to represent a PROGRAM, would never halt.
>
*That is not what these words say*
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
*its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
You already admitted the simulated input to HHH(DDD)
*would never stop running unless aborted*
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-05-15 12:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1004gdl$331gh$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #119025 |
Op 14.mei.2025 om 17:37 schreef olcott:
> On 5/14/2025 6:27 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/13/25 11:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2025 1:17 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> Introduction to the Theory of Computation 3rd Edition
>>>> by Michael Sipser (Author)
>>>> 4.4 out of 5 stars 568 rating
>>>>
>>>> https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Theory-Computation-Michael-
>>>> Sipser/ dp/113318779X
>>>>
>>>> int DD()
>>>> {
>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> DD correctly simulated by any pure simulator
>>>> named HHH cannot possibly terminate thus proving
>>>> that this criteria has been met:
>>>>
>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>>> would never stop running unless aborted then
>>>>
>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
>>>> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
>>>> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>
>>>
>>> People tried for more than a year to get away with saying
>>> that DDD was not emulated by HHH correctly until I stipulated
>>> that DDD is emulated by HHH according to the rules of the
>>> x86 language. Then they shut up about this.
>>>
>>> People tried to get away with saying that HHH
>>> cannot not decide halting on the basis of
>>> *simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
>>> until I pointed out that those exact words are in the spec.
>>>
>>> People tried to get away with saying that the correct
>>> emulation of a non-halting input cannot be partial
>>> Yet partial simulation is right in the spec:
>>> *H correctly simulates its input D until*
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Right, "Correct Simulations" can never be partial.
>>
>> Partial Simulations can be partial.
>>
>> Deciders can use Partial Simulations, if they do it correctly.
>>
>> But to do so, they need to show that the ACTUAL CORRECT SIMULATION of
>> this EXACT input, which needs to represent a PROGRAM, would never halt.
>>
>
> *That is not what these words say*
> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
> input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
> would never stop running unless aborted then
>
> *its simulated D would never stop running unless aborted*
And since the abort is there, HHH will return and DDD will stop.
>
> void DDD()
> {
> HHH(DDD);
> return;
> }
>
> You already admitted the simulated input to HHH(DDD)
> *would never stop running unless aborted*
>
And since the abort is there, the HHH wil stop, return to DDD and DDD
will stop as well.
Correct simulations see that, for example HHH and other world-class
simulators.
Come out of your rebuttal mode. Face the facts instead of your dreams.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web