Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #125039 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-08-13 00:30 -0500 |
| Last post | 2025-09-01 11:58 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 431 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 00:30 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-13 06:43 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 00:59 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-13 07:45 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 09:42 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-13 16:54 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 12:01 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-13 19:20 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 14:07 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 15:12 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 14:24 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 16:26 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 15:37 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 16:42 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 19:14 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 14:27 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 19:32 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 14:39 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 19:47 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 14:58 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 20:08 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 15:16 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 20:22 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Rice's Theorem is now Rice Krispies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 15:30 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Rice's Theorem is now Rice Krispies Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 20:35 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-08-13 20:13 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 16:33 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 16:28 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 15:39 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 16:44 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-14 09:34 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-13 21:25 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 15:49 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 16:51 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 16:06 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 17:08 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 16:09 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 17:13 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-13 22:19 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 06:43 +0800
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 07:01 +0800
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 18:03 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 19:38 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 18:42 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 19:43 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 18:58 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 20:19 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 19:26 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 20:39 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 19:48 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 20:59 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 20:10 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 21:24 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 20:44 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 21:47 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 04:08 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 04:05 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 03:57 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 22:12 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 23:30 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 05:13 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-14 07:03 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 03:46 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 22:01 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 05:07 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-14 07:06 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 03:35 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 21:37 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 22:59 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 22:15 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 23:33 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 23:30 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 05:52 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 00:01 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 06:26 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 00:31 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 06:36 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 00:42 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 07:09 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 08:00 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 09:33 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 11:07 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 12:00 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 13:53 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 12:58 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 19:23 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-14 18:42 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 13:58 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-08-14 17:01 -0600
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 18:09 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-08-14 17:28 -0600
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 18:36 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 19:14 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-08-14 18:33 -0600
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 19:40 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 20:41 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-08-14 18:54 -0600
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 20:01 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-08-14 19:04 -0600
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 20:10 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-08-14 19:37 -0600
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 21:16 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-08-14 20:28 -0600
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 21:32 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-08-14 20:43 -0600
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 21:50 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 10:29 +0800
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 20:40 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 19:41 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 20:43 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 19:45 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Tarski undefinability theorem dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 20:53 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-15 08:18 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 14:54 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-15 08:13 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 16:07 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 11:58 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 18:23 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-14 15:53 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-08-14 16:28 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-14 22:48 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-14 07:10 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 08:00 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 09:27 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 15:55 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 10:07 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 11:41 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 18:19 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 11:57 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 11:06 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 12:02 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-14 07:09 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 04:38 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 17:22 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 18:48 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 23:08 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 18:14 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 07:21 +0800
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 18:28 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 23:43 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 18:47 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 23:55 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 19:03 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-14 00:05 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 19:08 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-14 00:36 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 19:47 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 03:39 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 21:50 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 23:02 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 04:54 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 03:37 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 21:48 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 04:53 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-13 22:13 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 21:15 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 17:20 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 03:28 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 21:32 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 22:58 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 22:13 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 23:32 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-14 07:14 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 04:33 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-14 09:28 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-08-13 20:33 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-14 10:09 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 10:01 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 11:13 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 11:47 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-14 17:50 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 12:53 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 19:20 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-08-14 19:32 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 14:45 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-14 21:01 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 16:26 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-14 23:38 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 17:43 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 18:52 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-14 22:52 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 13:52 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-13 22:57 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-13 07:04 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-13 05:56 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 01:05 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-13 07:47 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 09:55 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-13 16:58 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-13 07:07 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-08-13 11:31 +0300
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 09:59 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-08-14 12:45 +0300
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-13 07:01 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-08-13 12:33 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 21:33 +0800
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 21:36 +0800
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 09:32 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-14 11:15 +0200
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 16:59 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 12:04 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 17:09 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 12:12 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 17:13 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 12:26 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 17:32 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 13:03 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 18:09 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 13:14 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 18:19 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 13:27 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 18:29 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 14:10 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 19:19 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 14:30 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 19:37 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 14:48 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-14 11:21 +0200
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-13 20:49 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 15:02 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-13 21:55 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 16:03 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-14 11:45 +0200
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-13 20:40 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 14:55 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 20:01 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 15:06 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 20:12 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 15:20 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 20:30 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 15:44 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 16:46 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 16:08 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 17:10 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2025-08-13 20:19 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 16:35 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-14 17:33 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-13 19:33 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-13 19:23 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 12:23 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 17:26 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 12:29 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-13 17:34 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-13 19:37 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-14 11:31 +0200
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-13 17:39 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 13:01 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-14 11:39 +0200
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-14 17:26 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 12:35 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 01:54 +0800
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 13:58 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-14 18:38 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 13:48 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-14 18:51 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 14:01 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 03:06 +0800
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-14 19:00 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 14:15 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 03:23 +0800
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 14:46 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 03:53 +0800
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 15:00 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 04:15 +0800
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 15:54 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 05:09 +0800
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 16:32 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 05:42 +0800
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 17:02 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 06:19 +0800
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 10:59 +0800
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 13:45 -0700
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-14 21:11 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 16:29 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-15 13:27 +0200
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Kaz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 07:07 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Kaz "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-16 10:34 +0200
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Kaz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 06:54 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Kaz Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-16 08:30 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Kaz dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 09:05 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Kaz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 09:09 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Kaz dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 10:57 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Kaz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 10:01 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Kaz dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 12:51 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Kaz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-16 12:11 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Kaz Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-16 14:25 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Kaz Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-16 17:24 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Kaz Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-16 14:25 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-14 20:02 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-14 19:13 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-15 13:20 +0200
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Kaz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 07:01 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Kaz dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-15 08:15 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-08-14 06:40 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 10:18 +0200
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-08-14 09:06 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-14 09:17 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation minforth <minforth@gmx.net> - 2025-08-14 18:54 +0200
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 09:35 +0200
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 09:16 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 16:26 +0200
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-23 15:41 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 17:10 +0200
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 10:32 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) - 2025-08-23 17:46 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 12:52 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 13:54 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-23 14:28 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 11:21 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-24 09:35 +0200
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 10:25 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-23 15:33 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 11:23 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-23 16:41 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 11:56 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-23 17:01 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 12:04 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-23 17:07 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 12:12 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-23 18:44 +0100
Measuring the actual behavior of the actual input to HHH(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 13:05 -0500
Re: Measuring the actual behavior of the actual input to HHH(DD) Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-23 20:58 +0100
Re: Measuring the actual behavior of the actual input to HHH(DD) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-08-28 10:31 +0300
Re: Measuring the actual behavior of the actual input to HHH(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-28 09:37 -0500
Re: Measuring the actual behavior of the actual input to HHH(DD) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-08-29 09:56 +0300
Re: Measuring the actual behavior of the actual input to HHH(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-29 09:07 -0500
Re: Measuring the actual behavior of the actual input to HHH(DD) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-29 22:15 -0400
Re: Measuring the actual behavior of the actual input to HHH(DD) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-30 06:06 +0000
Re: Measuring the actual behavior of the actual input to HHH(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-30 10:08 -0500
Re: Measuring the actual behavior of the actual input to HHH(DD) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-30 13:16 -0400
Re: Measuring the actual behavior of the actual input to HHH(DD) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-08-30 13:34 +0300
Re: Measuring the actual behavior of the actual input to HHH(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-30 11:22 -0500
Re: Measuring the actual behavior of the actual input to HHH(DD) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-08-31 11:45 +0300
Re: Measuring the actual behavior of the actual input to HHH(DD) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-29 22:12 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-23 21:36 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 16:45 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-23 19:00 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-24 05:53 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-24 07:19 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-24 12:34 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-24 07:52 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-24 14:25 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-24 16:44 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-24 11:19 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-24 16:24 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-24 17:55 +0100
My most significant progress --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-24 23:48 -0500
Re: My most significant progress --- Recursive simulation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-25 06:54 +0100
Re: My most significant progress --- Recursive simulation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-25 07:10 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-24 14:49 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-24 14:58 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-24 20:26 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-24 15:30 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-24 23:49 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-24 20:43 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-25 13:18 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 09:22 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-25 15:28 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-25 16:06 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-08-25 17:23 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 11:33 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 12:39 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 12:14 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 13:22 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-25 17:41 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 12:12 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-25 18:41 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-25 18:58 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 14:49 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-25 19:57 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-25 20:12 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 15:37 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-26 06:14 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 09:37 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-26 15:48 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-08-27 01:17 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 20:39 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-26 21:57 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-27 16:41 -0700
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-27 18:52 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-27 17:29 -0700
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-27 20:24 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-27 18:32 -0700
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-27 21:06 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-27 22:21 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-08-27 20:31 -0600
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-27 21:37 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-28 10:51 +0200
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-27 06:01 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-27 09:28 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 11:29 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-25 19:03 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 14:59 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-25 19:31 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-26 06:21 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 09:46 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-25 19:28 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-25 19:18 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-25 05:48 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-25 13:04 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-24 14:41 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-24 23:36 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-25 06:50 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-25 07:11 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-24 21:03 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-24 17:32 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-24 19:01 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-25 01:25 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-25 05:44 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 00:49 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-25 07:35 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 10:21 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-25 16:31 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 10:33 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-25 16:43 +0100
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-25 07:12 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-25 15:40 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-25 10:54 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-08-26 06:02 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-26 08:56 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 13:17 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 12:25 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 13:39 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-23 14:17 -0400
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 18:46 +0200
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-23 16:48 +0000
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-23 11:57 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-08-17 17:33 +0200
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-09-01 17:20 +0200
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-01 10:44 -0500
Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-09-01 11:58 -0400
Page 10 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 22 Next page →
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 22:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <HMtnQ.6839$9P93.3951@fx15.ams4> |
| In reply to | #125393 |
On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 17:43:34 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 8/14/2025 5:38 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
>> On 14/08/2025 22:01, joes wrote:
>>> Am Thu, 14 Aug 2025 14:45:29 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> [...]
>>>> Only because no one besides me ever thought of the notion of a
>>>> simulating halt decider.
>>> THAT is definitely overblown.
>>
>> Indeed, given that several times within the past decade, let
>> alone the past 22 years, I have supplied the assembled throng with a
>> link to my lecture notes for a module that I gave in the 1990s that
>> includes a discussion of exactly such a "notion". [FTAOD, I don't
>> claim to have originated the idea, which is much older]
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
> int DD()
> {
> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
> if (Halt_Status)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return Halt_Status;
> }
>
> *That is merely my short-hand way of avoiding verbosity*
>
> No one has ever thought through the notion of a simulating halt decider
> to the extent that they understood that DD correctly simulated by HHH
> does recognize the input to HHH(DD) as non-halting.
>
> None of your examples got in the ballpark of that.
If the decision of HHH(DD) is non-halting then DD() will do the opposite
thus proving that HHH is incorrect and confirming that the Halting Problem
is undecidable.
/Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 13:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <107l7oh$ksms$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125318 |
On 8/14/2025 12:47 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/14/2025 10:13 AM, dbush wrote: >> On 8/14/2025 11:01 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/14/2025 5:09 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:07:13 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 8/13/2025 1:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>> On 13/08/2025 18:01, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/13/2025 10:54 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> >>>>>> What happens after HHH returns? >>>> As can be seen below, olcott doesn’t even understand this question. >>>> >>>>>>> When one claims that an emulation is incorrect yet zero instructions >>>>>>> were emulated incorrectly then the claim is proved to be incorrect. >>>> That also applies to simulating no instructions at all. >>>> >>>>>>> I am surprised to find that seeing this execution trace is too >>>>>>> difficult for everyone here: >>>>>> Why should anyone even bother to look? >>>>> Because it proves that the counter-example input to the halting >>>>> problem >>>>> is decidable when one uses a different criterion measure. >>>> Ah, you’re not working on the HP. >>>> >>> >>> I am working on the HP exactly the same way that ZFC >>> worked on Russell's Paradox. >> >> So you're creating a new theory of computation? Then do so. And >> remember, you can't use *anything* from the old theory. >> > > I am correcting an erroneous aspect of the theory > of computation. All deciders must only compute the > mapping from their finite string input. Anything that > is not a finite string input is outside of the scope > of any decider. > > And therefore Turing machines can't do arithmetic as you've admitted: On 8/12/2025 8:13 AM, dbush wrote: > On 8/11/2025 11:29 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 8/11/2025 11:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>> When the spec requires reporting on a non-input >>> and ignores reporting on an input then we know >>> that spec is wrong. >> >> In other words Turning machines can't add 2 + 2 because the number 2 >> is a non-input, so any specification for a Turing machine to perform >> addition must be wrong. >> >> Agreed? > > I'll take your lack of response as agreement. > > It will be hard to get people to take you seriously when you claim that > Turing Machines can't do arithmetic because numbers are non-inputs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 22:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5gcnQ.99136$SJz5.34048@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #125069 |
On 8/13/25 10:42 AM, olcott wrote: > On 8/13/2025 1:45 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 13/08/2025 06:59, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/13/2025 12:43 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 13/08/2025 06:30, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>> You ask: How is this answer not self-evident ? >>>> >>>>> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input >>>> >>>> To you, the above is self-evident. To me (and to several others >>>> here), it is not. Your attempts to explain it with x86 traces are >>>> unconvincing because they lack explanatory power. >>> >>> So you cannot see that when HHH(DD) is executed that >>> this begins simulating DD that calls HHH(DD) that >>> begins simulating DD that calls HHH(DD) again ??? >> >> You are skipping lightly over the word "correctly". >> > > Because when I delve deeper into this it seems > to exceed your technical capacity. The x86 language > is the ultimate measure of correct simulation. In plainer words, you are just showing that you can't go into more detail, as that makes your lies clear, so you need to use approximations to hide your errors that the more precise discussion makes clear. Sorry, that is just one of the classic techniques of liars. > >> To you, clearly, your work is flawless. I realise that that's never >> going to change no matter what anyone says, but there are those of us >> who disagree with you. >> > > If you would merely understand the x86 code and understand > that the x86 language is the ultimate measure of correct > simulation then you would agree with me. You mean like the fact that the correct emulaiton of code doesn't depend on the context of the emulator? > > Three different LLM systems could see the recursive > emulation on their own without prompting on the basis > of the semantics of the C code. Which is meaningless, as you feed them all the same biased description, that when fixed lets them give the answer you reject. SO, are LLMs reliable? if so, then you need to accept that they say you are wrong. If they aren't, you are just showing you logic is baseless as it is based on something unreliable. > > That three different systems see that actual execution > trace and no one can point to any specific error in this > execution trace seems to prove that I am correct. > > Dogmatically saying that I am wrong without being able > to show exactly which instruction was simulated incorrectly > does not seem to count as any actual rebuttal. But we HAVE, and you haven't shown how it was. Sorry, you are just and proven LIAR. > > Do you have many years as a C/C++ programmer? I have more than you. > >> We have explained why until we're blue in the face. I see no value in >> going for magenta. >> >> >> <snip> >> >>>>> >>>>> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return? >>>> >>>> >>>> Well, it can't return a correct value, because no matter what it >>>> reports DD will turn on its head. And *that* is self-evident. >>>> >>> >>> Can you see how DD correctly simulated by HHH never >>> reaches its "if" statement? >> >> No, and I can't see how it's relevant even if your claim of >> correctness were true. >> >> (a) "correctly" is subject to debate, at the very least; >> (b) DD correctly executed directly on its host platform CAN reach its >> "if" statement as soon as HHH reports. If HHH fails to report, it's >> not a decider. >> (c) as soon as DD correctly executed directly on its host platform >> DOES reach its "if" statement, you're screwed because DD turns HHH's >> report upside down. >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 07:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <cj_mQ.479$_vf6.305@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #125042 |
On 8/13/25 1:59 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/13/2025 12:43 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 13/08/2025 06:30, olcott wrote:
>>
>> You ask: How is this answer not self-evident ?
>>
>>> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input
>>
>> To you, the above is self-evident. To me (and to several others here),
>> it is not. Your attempts to explain it with x86 traces are
>> unconvincing because they lack explanatory power.
>
> So you cannot see that when HHH(DD) is executed that
> this begins simulating DD that calls HHH(DD) that
> begins simulating DD that calls HHH(DD) again ???
Right, so if HHH doesn't abort, it will be non-haltig.
But if it does abort and return 0, so will the HHH that DD calls, and
thus it will halt.
Thus, there is no finite pattern that can be detected, and the false
assumption that there is a finite patter to detect is just incorrect.
>
>>
>>> until:
>>> (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and
>>> return 0.
>>> (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>> return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
>>
>>
>> Well, it can't return a correct value, because no matter what it
>> reports DD will turn on its head. And *that* is self-evident.
>>
>
> Can you see how DD correctly simulated by HHH never
> reaches its "if" statement?
>
But, any HHH that meetes the requirements to be a decider, must let DD
get to that if.
Your imagined HHH just fails to meet the requirements, so the program
that meets your requirements (which don't allow it to run forever)
doesn't exist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 05:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107h9ev$3noh6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125039 |
Feel free to explain how it *is* self-evident.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 01:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <107h9vb$3ms6e$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125041 |
On 8/13/2025 12:56 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
> Feel free to explain how it *is* self-evident.
typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
I can directly see that that when HHH(DD) is executed
that this begins simulating DD that calls HHH(DD) that
begins simulating DD that calls HHH(DD) again.
--
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 | 2025-08-13 07:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <107hcd9$3o9os$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125043 |
On 13/08/2025 07:05, olcott wrote:
> On 8/13/2025 12:56 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> Feel free to explain how it *is* self-evident.
>
> typedef int (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
>
> int DD()
> {
> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
> if (Halt_Status)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return Halt_Status;
> }
>
> I can directly see that that when HHH(DD) is executed
> that this begins simulating DD that calls HHH(DD) that
> begins simulating DD that calls HHH(DD) again.
...and when HHH eventually reports?
But of course that's self-evident.
--
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 | 2025-08-13 09:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <107i90c$3uaqn$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125045 |
On 8/13/2025 1:47 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 13/08/2025 07:05, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/13/2025 12:56 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>> Feel free to explain how it *is* self-evident.
>>
>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>
>> int DD()
>> {
>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>> if (Halt_Status)
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> I can directly see that that when HHH(DD) is executed
>> that this begins simulating DD that calls HHH(DD) that
>> begins simulating DD that calls HHH(DD) again.
>
>
> ...and when HHH eventually reports?
>
> But of course that's self-evident.
>
The above execution trace seems self-evident to me.
Do you see this now that it has been pointed out?
Three different LLM systems did figure out that
execution trace on their own.
Line 996 matches the
*recursive simulation non-halting behavior pattern*
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
Its not as self-evident, yet all three LLM systems
recognized that this pattern has been matched and I
did not even tell them that this pattern exists.
The initial post in this thread was the entire basis
that these three LLM systems had.
https://claude.ai/share/da9e56ba-f4e9-45ee-9f2c-dc5ffe10f00c
https://chatgpt.com/share/68939ee5-e2f8-8011-837d-438fe8e98b9c
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_810120bb-5ab5-4bf8-af21-eedd0f09e141
--
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 | 2025-08-13 16:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <107icne$3vott$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125070 |
On 13/08/2025 15:55, olcott wrote: <snip> > The above execution trace seems self-evident to me. Yes, I know. > Do you see this now that it has been pointed out? It's self-evident...that HHH must either fail to report or report the wrong answer. > Three different LLM systems did figure out that > execution trace on their own. You see? AIs can be wrong too. But that's also self-evident. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 07:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Zl_mQ.480$_vf6.8@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #125043 |
On 8/13/25 2:05 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/13/2025 12:56 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>> Feel free to explain how it *is* self-evident.
>
> typedef int (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
>
> int DD()
> {
> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
> if (Halt_Status)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return Halt_Status;
> }
>
> I can directly see that that when HHH(DD) is executed
> that this begins simulating DD that calls HHH(DD) that
> begins simulating DD that calls HHH(DD) again.
>
But seem to be too stupid to be able to look forward and see that if HHH
does abort, and thus doesn't do a correct simulation, that the correct
simulation of the input will do the same and return 0, and DD will halt.
Part of your problem is you beleived your own lie that it needs to be
HHH to do the correct simulation, when that is just a falsehood, related
to you confusions about truth and knowledge.
Things can be true that are unknown, or unknowable, or unprovable.
That concept seems to be beyond your head, and make you think that means
that nothing is knowable, which is just a false dichotomy,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 11:31 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <107hihq$3pqv0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125039 |
On 2025-08-13 05:30:56 +0000, olcott said:
> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
> (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and return 0.
> (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
>
> typedef int (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
>
> int DD()
> {
> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
> if (Halt_Status)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return Halt_Status;
> }
>
> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
A question is never self-evident. A claim can be self-evident
but the above is not a claim.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 09:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <107i98b$3uaqn$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125052 |
On 8/13/2025 3:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-08-13 05:30:56 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
>> (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and
>> return 0.
>> (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
>>
>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>
>> int DD()
>> {
>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>> if (Halt_Status)
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
>
> A question is never self-evident. A claim can be self-evident
> but the above is not a claim.
>
*You changed my words and then rebutted those changed words*
That is the strawman error of reasoning.
The answer to that question was self-evident to me and
three LLM systems:
https://claude.ai/share/da9e56ba-f4e9-45ee-9f2c-dc5ffe10f00c
https://chatgpt.com/share/68939ee5-e2f8-8011-837d-438fe8e98b9c
https://grok.com/share/c2hhcmQtMg%3D%3D_810120bb-5ab5-4bf8-af21-eedd0f09e141
How is it not self-evident to you?
Can you not figure out the execution trace of
DD correctly simulated by HHH?
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 12:45 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <107kb8d$dc9d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125071 |
On 2025-08-13 14:59:23 +0000, olcott said:
> On 8/13/2025 3:31 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-08-13 05:30:56 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
>>> (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and return 0.
>>> (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>> return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
>>
>> A question is never self-evident. A claim can be self-evident
>> but the above is not a claim.
>
> *You changed my words and then rebutted those changed words*
Not intentionally. What in the above quoted text is different
from the text you posted?
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 07:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Eg_mQ.478$_vf6.71@fx12.iad> |
| In reply to | #125039 |
On 8/13/25 1:30 AM, olcott wrote:
> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
> (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and
> return 0.
> (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
or keeps running if it never finds a finite pattern that accurately
detects non-halting or reaches the end.>
> typedef int (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
>
> int DD()
> {
> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
> if (Halt_Status)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return Halt_Status;
> }
>
> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
>
Which assumes that there is one.
Your problem is that fallacy of the presumed condition.
IT is just like, Have you stopped beating your wife?
or, for your
Have you stopped owning and watching illegal kiddie porn?
(Only that one isn't so much based on a false assumption).
The problem is there is not pattern that HHH can detect in its
simulation of DD, to abort on, that still leaves DD non-halting, because
DD uses the exact same code in its call to HHH, so if HHH thinks the
input is non-halting, it will be haltig.
All you are doing is forgetting one step of the logic.
An program actually built on that rule would be non-halting on this
input, as it turns out that there is no pattern that can be detected,
which still leaves the resultant DD non-halting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 12:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107i0lv$8i$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #125039 |
In article <107h7ug$3ms6e$1@dont-email.me>, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >What value should HHH(DD) correctly return? It really depends. Did you let it cool _before_ applying it to the wire brush? - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 21:33 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <02669ca3aaf5d376efff77c9d75bf0dfd15dc903.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #125039 |
On Wed, 2025-08-13 at 00:30 -0500, olcott wrote:
> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
> (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and
> return 0.
> (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
(a),(b) are desired spec (or wishes), not fact.
> typedef int (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
>
> int DD()
> {
> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
> if (Halt_Status)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return Halt_Status;
> }
>
> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
As you have encountered, HHH->DD->HHH->DD.... HHH and DD both will not return
HHH(DD) should return 1 or 0 according to its desired spec.
But, HHH(DD) does not return. HHH does meet the desired spec.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 21:36 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <1cc720402edfd92f2d406de0a5746f827189bc8f.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #125065 |
On Wed, 2025-08-13 at 21:33 +0800, wij wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-08-13 at 00:30 -0500, olcott wrote:
> > Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
> > (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and
> > return 0.
> > (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
>
> (a),(b) are desired spec (or wishes), not fact.
>
> > typedef int (*ptr)();
> > int HHH(ptr P);
> >
> > int DD()
> > {
> > int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
> > if (Halt_Status)
> > HERE: goto HERE;
> > return Halt_Status;
> > }
> >
> > What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
>
> As you have encountered, HHH->DD->HHH->DD.... HHH and DD both will not return
>
> HHH(DD) should return 1 or 0 according to its desired spec.
> But, HHH(DD) does not return. HHH does meet the desired spec.
Correction: HHH does not meet the desired spec.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 09:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <107i7mk$3uaqn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125065 |
On 8/13/2025 8:33 AM, wij wrote:
> On Wed, 2025-08-13 at 00:30 -0500, olcott wrote:
>> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
>> (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and
>> return 0.
>> (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
>
> (a),(b) are desired spec (or wishes), not fact.
>
They are premises that have been proved true on
some inputs.
>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>
>> int DD()
>> {
>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>> if (Halt_Status)
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
>
> As you have encountered, HHH->DD->HHH->DD.... HHH and DD both will not return
>
> HHH(DD) should return 1 or 0 according to its desired spec.
> But, HHH(DD) does not return. HHH does meet the desired spec.
>
You ignored the first premise, LLM
systems don't make that mistake.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 11:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <107k9f7$cdea$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125068 |
Op 13.aug.2025 om 16:32 schreef olcott:
> On 8/13/2025 8:33 AM, wij wrote:
>> On Wed, 2025-08-13 at 00:30 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
>>> (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and
>>> return 0.
>>> (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
>>
>> (a),(b) are desired spec (or wishes), not fact.
>>
>
> They are premises that have been proved true on
> some inputs.
There were no proofs, only your dreams.
The fact is that your published HHH fails, because it incorrectly
*assumes* non-termination, not detects non-termination.
The other fact is that both (a) and (b) lead to a contradiction,
proving that they are incorrect.
You can correct that by replacing (a):
(a) Assumes a non-termination pattern, where it does not exist: abort
simulation and return 0.
Try that and the AI will show correct answers.
You cannot prove that HHH is correct by assuming in the premise that it
is correct.
>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>> return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
>>
>> As you have encountered, HHH->DD->HHH->DD.... HHH and DD both will not
>> return
>>
>> HHH(DD) should return 1 or 0 according to its desired spec.
>> But, HHH(DD) does not return. HHH does meet the desired spec.
>>
>
> You ignored the first premise, LLM
> systems don't make that mistake.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 16:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Xv3nQ.539$Tfr4.499@fx13.ams4> |
| In reply to | #125039 |
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 00:30:56 -0500, olcott wrote:
> Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
> (a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and
> return 0.
> (b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
>
> typedef int (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
>
> int DD()
> {
> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
> if (Halt_Status)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return Halt_Status;
> }
>
> What value should HHH(DD) correctly return?
It doesn't f**king matter what HHH(DD) returns because DD() will do the
f**king opposite thus confirming the extant Halting Problem proofs are
correct.
/Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web