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 2 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 22 Next page →
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 20:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Eg6nQ.3$%Y1a.0@fx07.ams4> |
| In reply to | #125136 |
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:58:58 -0500, olcott wrote: > On 8/13/2025 2:47 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:39:27 -0500, olcott wrote: >> >>> On 8/13/2025 2:32 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:27:48 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 8/13/2025 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:07:13 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The DD stack cannot possibly unwind because there is nothing >>>>>>> driving the behavior of DD after HHH aborts its simulation of DD. >>>>>> >>>>>> False, main() is calling DD(). >>>>>> >>>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>>> More precisely there is nothing driving the behavior of DD correctly >>>>> simulated by HHH after HHH quits simulating DD. >>>>> >>>>> Also the directly executed DD (caller of HHH) has always been >>>>> invisible to this HHH, hence not in the scope of this HHH. >>>> >>>> The directly executed DD doesn't have to be visible to HHH, >>> >>> So you expect HHH to have psychic ability? >>> >>>> HHH just needs to be passed a *description* of DD >>> >>> Yet I proved (and everyone consistently makes sure to totally ignore >>> every single day for three years) DD correctly simulated by HHH has >>> different behavior than DD(). >> >> And that different behaviour confirms the extant Halting Problem proofs >> are correct! >> >> /Flibble > > Not when the halting problem is corrected to be consistent with the way > that Turing machines actually work. > > When we assume that Turing machines do not have the psychic ability to > see the behavior of their caller, then HHH(DD)==0 is correct. A Halting Problem proof does not have to be predicated on Turing Machines. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 15:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <107irrj$2lnd$12@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125140 |
On 8/13/2025 3:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:58:58 -0500, olcott wrote: > >> On 8/13/2025 2:47 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:39:27 -0500, olcott wrote: >>> >>>> On 8/13/2025 2:32 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:27:48 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/13/2025 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:07:13 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The DD stack cannot possibly unwind because there is nothing >>>>>>>> driving the behavior of DD after HHH aborts its simulation of DD. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> False, main() is calling DD(). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>> >>>>>> More precisely there is nothing driving the behavior of DD correctly >>>>>> simulated by HHH after HHH quits simulating DD. >>>>>> >>>>>> Also the directly executed DD (caller of HHH) has always been >>>>>> invisible to this HHH, hence not in the scope of this HHH. >>>>> >>>>> The directly executed DD doesn't have to be visible to HHH, >>>> >>>> So you expect HHH to have psychic ability? >>>> >>>>> HHH just needs to be passed a *description* of DD >>>> >>>> Yet I proved (and everyone consistently makes sure to totally ignore >>>> every single day for three years) DD correctly simulated by HHH has >>>> different behavior than DD(). >>> >>> And that different behaviour confirms the extant Halting Problem proofs >>> are correct! >>> >>> /Flibble >> >> Not when the halting problem is corrected to be consistent with the way >> that Turing machines actually work. >> >> When we assume that Turing machines do not have the psychic ability to >> see the behavior of their caller, then HHH(DD)==0 is correct. > > A Halting Problem proof does not have to be predicated on Turing Machines. > > /Flibble Hence the reason why I specified this in the 100% concrete form of C functions. This is specific enough to prove that misconceptions are false. Without this degree of concrete specificity misconceptions forever remain as unresolved differences of opinion. That Heathfield does not want to bother going through the effort to prove to himself that he is wrong does not prove that he is right. -- 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 | Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 20:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Tt6nQ.5$QHD7.0@fx05.ams4> |
| In reply to | #125143 |
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 15:16:51 -0500, olcott wrote: > On 8/13/2025 3:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:58:58 -0500, olcott wrote: >> >>> On 8/13/2025 2:47 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:39:27 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 8/13/2025 2:32 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:27:48 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/13/2025 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:07:13 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The DD stack cannot possibly unwind because there is nothing >>>>>>>>> driving the behavior of DD after HHH aborts its simulation of >>>>>>>>> DD. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> False, main() is calling DD(). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>> >>>>>>> More precisely there is nothing driving the behavior of DD >>>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH after HHH quits simulating DD. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Also the directly executed DD (caller of HHH) has always been >>>>>>> invisible to this HHH, hence not in the scope of this HHH. >>>>>> >>>>>> The directly executed DD doesn't have to be visible to HHH, >>>>> >>>>> So you expect HHH to have psychic ability? >>>>> >>>>>> HHH just needs to be passed a *description* of DD >>>>> >>>>> Yet I proved (and everyone consistently makes sure to totally ignore >>>>> every single day for three years) DD correctly simulated by HHH has >>>>> different behavior than DD(). >>>> >>>> And that different behaviour confirms the extant Halting Problem >>>> proofs are correct! >>>> >>>> /Flibble >>> >>> Not when the halting problem is corrected to be consistent with the >>> way that Turing machines actually work. >>> >>> When we assume that Turing machines do not have the psychic ability to >>> see the behavior of their caller, then HHH(DD)==0 is correct. >> >> A Halting Problem proof does not have to be predicated on Turing >> Machines. >> >> /Flibble > > Hence the reason why I specified this in the 100% concrete form of C > functions. This is specific enough to prove that misconceptions are > false. Without this degree of concrete specificity misconceptions > forever remain as unresolved differences of opinion. > > That Heathfield does not want to bother going through the effort to > prove to himself that he is wrong does not prove that he is right. No, it means there are proofs proving the Halting Problem is undecidable without reference to Turing Machines. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 15:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Rice's Theorem is now Rice Krispies |
| Message-ID | <107isl4$2lnd$14@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125146 |
On 8/13/2025 3:22 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 15:16:51 -0500, olcott wrote: > >> On 8/13/2025 3:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:58:58 -0500, olcott wrote: >>> >>>> On 8/13/2025 2:47 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:39:27 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/13/2025 2:32 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:27:48 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8/13/2025 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:07:13 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The DD stack cannot possibly unwind because there is nothing >>>>>>>>>> driving the behavior of DD after HHH aborts its simulation of >>>>>>>>>> DD. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> False, main() is calling DD(). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> More precisely there is nothing driving the behavior of DD >>>>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH after HHH quits simulating DD. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Also the directly executed DD (caller of HHH) has always been >>>>>>>> invisible to this HHH, hence not in the scope of this HHH. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The directly executed DD doesn't have to be visible to HHH, >>>>>> >>>>>> So you expect HHH to have psychic ability? >>>>>> >>>>>>> HHH just needs to be passed a *description* of DD >>>>>> >>>>>> Yet I proved (and everyone consistently makes sure to totally ignore >>>>>> every single day for three years) DD correctly simulated by HHH has >>>>>> different behavior than DD(). >>>>> >>>>> And that different behaviour confirms the extant Halting Problem >>>>> proofs are correct! >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>> >>>> Not when the halting problem is corrected to be consistent with the >>>> way that Turing machines actually work. >>>> >>>> When we assume that Turing machines do not have the psychic ability to >>>> see the behavior of their caller, then HHH(DD)==0 is correct. >>> >>> A Halting Problem proof does not have to be predicated on Turing >>> Machines. >>> >>> /Flibble >> >> Hence the reason why I specified this in the 100% concrete form of C >> functions. This is specific enough to prove that misconceptions are >> false. Without this degree of concrete specificity misconceptions >> forever remain as unresolved differences of opinion. >> >> That Heathfield does not want to bother going through the effort to >> prove to himself that he is wrong does not prove that he is right. > > No, it means there are proofs proving the Halting Problem is undecidable > without reference to Turing Machines. > > /Flibble None of the conventional proofs prove halting undecidability no matter how they do it. This also includes the membership algorithm for recursively enumerable languages that depends on the halting problem proof result. This also includes Rice's Theorem that depends on the halting problem proof result. -- 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 | Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 20:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Rice's Theorem is now Rice Krispies |
| Message-ID | <7G6nQ.3305$9P93.2650@fx15.ams4> |
| In reply to | #125151 |
On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 15:30:28 -0500, olcott wrote: > On 8/13/2025 3:22 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 15:16:51 -0500, olcott wrote: >> >>> On 8/13/2025 3:08 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:58:58 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 8/13/2025 2:47 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:39:27 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/13/2025 2:32 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:27:48 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 8/13/2025 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:07:13 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The DD stack cannot possibly unwind because there is nothing >>>>>>>>>>> driving the behavior of DD after HHH aborts its simulation of >>>>>>>>>>> DD. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> False, main() is calling DD(). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> More precisely there is nothing driving the behavior of DD >>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by HHH after HHH quits simulating DD. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Also the directly executed DD (caller of HHH) has always been >>>>>>>>> invisible to this HHH, hence not in the scope of this HHH. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The directly executed DD doesn't have to be visible to HHH, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So you expect HHH to have psychic ability? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> HHH just needs to be passed a *description* of DD >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yet I proved (and everyone consistently makes sure to totally >>>>>>> ignore every single day for three years) DD correctly simulated by >>>>>>> HHH has different behavior than DD(). >>>>>> >>>>>> And that different behaviour confirms the extant Halting Problem >>>>>> proofs are correct! >>>>>> >>>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>>> Not when the halting problem is corrected to be consistent with the >>>>> way that Turing machines actually work. >>>>> >>>>> When we assume that Turing machines do not have the psychic ability >>>>> to see the behavior of their caller, then HHH(DD)==0 is correct. >>>> >>>> A Halting Problem proof does not have to be predicated on Turing >>>> Machines. >>>> >>>> /Flibble >>> >>> Hence the reason why I specified this in the 100% concrete form of C >>> functions. This is specific enough to prove that misconceptions are >>> false. Without this degree of concrete specificity misconceptions >>> forever remain as unresolved differences of opinion. >>> >>> That Heathfield does not want to bother going through the effort to >>> prove to himself that he is wrong does not prove that he is right. >> >> No, it means there are proofs proving the Halting Problem is >> undecidable without reference to Turing Machines. >> >> /Flibble > > None of the conventional proofs prove halting undecidability no matter > how they do it. An assertion not based in reality much like all your other baseless assertions. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 20:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107irll$mco$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #125136 |
In article <107iqq2$2lnd$9@dont-email.me>, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >Not when the halting problem is corrected to be >consistent with the way that Turing machines actually >work. > >When we assume that Turing machines do not have the >psychic ability to see the behavior of their caller, >then HHH(DD)==0 is correct. Well, the REAL question is whether the State of California has determined if HHH(DD) has chemicals that may be harmful to children or pregnant people. - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 16:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <107isrm$3mbs$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125136 |
On 8/13/2025 3:58 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/13/2025 2:47 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:39:27 -0500, olcott wrote: >> >>> On 8/13/2025 2:32 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:27:48 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 8/13/2025 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:07:13 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The DD stack cannot possibly unwind because there is nothing driving >>>>>>> the behavior of DD after HHH aborts its simulation of DD. >>>>>> False, main() is calling DD(). >>>>>> >>>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>>> More precisely there is nothing driving the behavior of DD correctly >>>>> simulated by HHH after HHH quits simulating DD. >>>>> >>>>> Also the directly executed DD (caller of HHH) has always been >>>>> invisible to this HHH, hence not in the scope of this HHH. >>>> >>>> The directly executed DD doesn't have to be visible to HHH, >>> >>> So you expect HHH to have psychic ability? >>> >>>> HHH just needs to be passed a *description* of DD >>> >>> Yet I proved (and everyone consistently makes sure to totally ignore >>> every single day for three years) DD correctly simulated by HHH has >>> different behavior than DD(). >> >> And that different behaviour confirms the extant Halting Problem proofs >> are correct! >> >> /Flibble > > Not when the halting problem is corrected to be > consistent with the way that Turing machines actually > work. A prerequisite for doing that is coming up with a new term to describe what "halting problem" previously referred to. So what term would you use instead of "halting problem" to describe the issue of creating a Turing machine that performs the following mapping, and similarly what term would you use instead of "halt decider" for a Turning machine that perform the below 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 | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 16:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <107isgh$3mbs$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125130 |
On 8/13/2025 3:39 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/13/2025 2:32 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:27:48 -0500, olcott wrote: >> >>> On 8/13/2025 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:07:13 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>> The DD stack cannot possibly unwind because there is nothing driving >>>>> the behavior of DD after HHH aborts its simulation of DD. >>>> False, main() is calling DD(). >>>> >>>> /Flibble >>> >>> More precisely there is nothing driving the behavior of DD correctly >>> simulated by HHH after HHH quits simulating DD. >>> >>> Also the directly executed DD (caller of HHH) has always been invisible >>> to this HHH, hence not in the scope of this HHH. >> >> The directly executed DD doesn't have to be visible to HHH, > > So you expect HHH to have psychic ability? > >> HHH just needs >> to be passed a *description* of DD > > Yet I proved (and everyone consistently makes sure > to totally ignore every single day for three years) > DD correctly simulated by HHH Is not what anyone cares about. We care about DD correctly simulated by UTM.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 15:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <107it6s$2lnd$16@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125149 |
On 8/13/2025 3:28 PM, dbush wrote: > On 8/13/2025 3:39 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 8/13/2025 2:32 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:27:48 -0500, olcott wrote: >>> >>>> On 8/13/2025 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:07:13 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The DD stack cannot possibly unwind because there is nothing driving >>>>>> the behavior of DD after HHH aborts its simulation of DD. >>>>> False, main() is calling DD(). >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>> >>>> More precisely there is nothing driving the behavior of DD correctly >>>> simulated by HHH after HHH quits simulating DD. >>>> >>>> Also the directly executed DD (caller of HHH) has always been invisible >>>> to this HHH, hence not in the scope of this HHH. >>> >>> The directly executed DD doesn't have to be visible to HHH, >> >> So you expect HHH to have psychic ability? >> >>> HHH just needs >>> to be passed a *description* of DD >> >> Yet I proved (and everyone consistently makes sure >> to totally ignore every single day for three years) >> DD correctly simulated by HHH > > Is not what anyone cares about. We care about DD correctly simulated by > UTM. If HHH was a UTM then HHH(DD) would never return. -- 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 | 2025-08-13 16:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <107ites$3mbs$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125158 |
On 8/13/2025 4:39 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/13/2025 3:28 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 8/13/2025 3:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/13/2025 2:32 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:27:48 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 8/13/2025 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:07:13 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The DD stack cannot possibly unwind because there is nothing driving >>>>>>> the behavior of DD after HHH aborts its simulation of DD. >>>>>> False, main() is calling DD(). >>>>>> >>>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>>> More precisely there is nothing driving the behavior of DD correctly >>>>> simulated by HHH after HHH quits simulating DD. >>>>> >>>>> Also the directly executed DD (caller of HHH) has always been >>>>> invisible >>>>> to this HHH, hence not in the scope of this HHH. >>>> >>>> The directly executed DD doesn't have to be visible to HHH, >>> >>> So you expect HHH to have psychic ability? >>> >>>> HHH just needs >>>> to be passed a *description* of DD >>> >>> Yet I proved (and everyone consistently makes sure >>> to totally ignore every single day for three years) >>> DD correctly simulated by HHH >> >> Is not what anyone cares about. We care about DD correctly simulated >> by UTM. > > If HHH was a UTM Then you're changing the input. Changing the input is not allowed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 09:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <107kaif$csg3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125158 |
Am Wed, 13 Aug 2025 15:39:56 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 8/13/2025 3:28 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 8/13/2025 3:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/13/2025 2:32 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:27:48 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 8/13/2025 2:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 13 Aug 2025 14:07:13 -0500, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> The DD stack cannot possibly unwind because there is nothing >>>>>>> driving the behavior of DD after HHH aborts its simulation of DD. >>>>>> False, main() is calling DD(). >>>>>> >>>>> More precisely there is nothing driving the behavior of DD correctly >>>>> simulated by HHH after HHH quits simulating DD. >>>>> Also the directly executed DD (caller of HHH) has always been >>>>> invisible to this HHH, hence not in the scope of this HHH. >>>> >>>> The directly executed DD doesn't have to be visible to HHH, >>>> HHH just needs to be passed a *description* of DD >>> >>> Yet I proved DD correctly simulated by HHH >> >> Is not what anyone cares about. We care about DD correctly simulated >> by UTM. > > If HHH was a UTM then HHH(DD) would never return. Yes, but HHH is not an UTM. DD does not call an UTM. An UTM simulating DD, which calls a partial simulator HHH, will halt, in line with direct execution. You keep modifying what DD calls. -- Am Sat, 20 Jul 2024 12:35:31 +0000 schrieb WM in sci.math: It is not guaranteed that n+1 exists for every n.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 21:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <107iscm$3mm4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125120 |
Blimey, olcott - 413 lines! Learn to snip, why don't you?
On 13/08/2025 20:07, olcott wrote:
> On 8/13/2025 1:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
<snip - count chevrons for attribs>
>>> Point out the instruction that was emulated
>>> incorrectly or acknowledge that you cannot.
>>
>> Why should I?
>>
>> (a) It's your bug to find.
>
> You will not accept that there is no bug until
> you look for this yourself and find none.
You assume the bug, if any, is in the code. It isn't. Well, it
might be; I'd be very surprised if it were bug-free. But the real
bug is in the design. Hence (b) below.
>> (b) Even if you find it, it won't matter, for reasons I
>> outlined (again!) in my last reply.
>> 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.
But that's not your choice to make. Either it halts or it
doesn't. That is the only criterion, and the only measure
available is halts vs doesn't halt.
> Until this is understood it cannot be understood
> the the original criterion measure is incorrect.
That's not your call. The original question was whether a program
can be written that is capable of determining for any given
arbitrary program whether it halts. And we already know the
answer: no.
That is what Turing proved. If you want to attack his proof,
that's the question you have to tackle. Calling it "incorrect" is
just weaseling out, but it's just your word against a remarkably
clear and simple proof.
>> No matter what your trace says, you still have only three
>> choices - return halt (wrong!), return loop (wrong!) or don't
>> return (wrong!). Whichever you choose, it's the wrong solution,
>> even if your trace is flawless.
>>
>
> Or return a value corresponding to the actual behavior
> that the input actually specifies as measured by DD
> correctly simulated by HHH.
No, HHH must report on the behaviour of the function it's asked
about - DD. Inspection shows that whatever HHH returns is wrong,
so HHH fails in its task.
>>> When HHH(DD) is executed that this begins simulating
>>> DD that calls HHH(DD) that begins simulating DD that
>>> calls HHH(DD) again.
>>
>> You keep saying that, but you never stop to think what happens
>> when HHH /stops/ executing.
>>
>
> Nothing happens because all of the recursive simulations
> were entirely driven by HHH simulating its own DD.
No, DD kicks it off. Here's the code, in case you forgot what it
looks like:
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
I can plug this into a main() easily enough:
int main(void)
{
int status = DD();
printf("DD returns %d\n", status);
return 0;
}
Since we know what HHH returns, we can even supply that:
int HHH(ptr P)
{
return 0;
}
It doesn't take much more work to knock those into an executable,
which will demonstrate beyond doubt that HH got it wrong.
> How far can a car drive up a hill after it runs out of gas?
What's the difference between a wrong answer?
>> Your trace fails to show the stack unwinding after HHH has
>> reached its decision, all simulation is concluded, and DD
>> regains control at last.
>>
>
> Yes it does because the DD stack cannot possibly
> unwind when HHH aborts its simulation of DD.
Then HHH fails to report, and fails to be a decider.
>>>> Conversely, if HHH instead returns 1 to reflect this, DD will
>>>> instead enter into its loop, again giving the lie to HHH's
>>>> return code.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is not the behavior of the input.
>>
>> How do you know? You don't simulate that far.
>>
>
> Yet another person that believes a simulation of a non-terminating
> input is only correct when it reaches its non-existent end.
No, I'm yet another person who believes a "simulation" that gets
the wrong answer can hardly qualify as a simulation.
> Maybe the problem is (as you have hinted) that you
> don't have any actual programming experience?
It's a thought.
>> I'm not asking HHH to tell me anything but whether DD halts.
>>
>
> Then you cannot be talking about the directly executed
> DD() in main that calls HHH(DD) because no termination
> analyzer can possibly see its own caller.
So you concede that no termination analyser can analyse every
possible program, QED.
> The DD stack cannot possibly unwind because there
> is nothing driving the behavior of DD after HHH
> aborts its simulation of DD.
You aborted the simulation, not the program.
int main(void)
{
int status = DD();
printf("DD returns %d\n", status);
return 0;
}
>>> ** As long as HHH has access to an x86 emulator that
>>> provides the cooperative multi-taking infrastructure
>>> required to implement this.
>>
>> It doesn't matter. What happens when HHH returns?
>>
>
> int main()
> {
> Output("Input_Halts = ", HHH(DD));
printf("DD reports "); fflush(stdout);
printf("%d\n", DD());
return 0;
}
>>>> Just as you are assured that you are self-evidently correct,
>>>> so I am sure that you self-evidently are mistaken. The x86
>>>> language has NOTHING to say on the correctness of your code;
>>>
>>> It has everything to say about the correctness of DD
>>> emulated by HHH.
>>
>> Then you can save yourself a lot of clocks with this hack
>>
>> int HHH(ptr P)
>> {
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>
> HHH works correctly with an infinite set of
> inputs, Your suggestion would break that.
I've only seen it tried on one, and it gets that wrong.
>>> I am shocked that everyone here thinks that recursive
>>> emulation is incomprehensibly more difficult to understand
>>> than ordinary recursion.
>>
>> It isn't hard to understand. It's just irrelevant to the
>> question of whether HHH returns the correct value (which it
>> doesn't, by the way).
>
> Unless you understand that
> a termination analyzer only reports on the actual
> behavior actually specified by its input and
HHH's input is DD. The actual behaviour it exhibits is to
confound HHH.
--
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 15:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <107itol$2lnd$18@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125147 |
On 8/13/2025 3:25 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > Blimey, olcott - 413 lines! Learn to snip, why don't you? > > On 13/08/2025 20:07, olcott wrote: >> On 8/13/2025 1:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > <snip - count chevrons for attribs> > >>>> Point out the instruction that was emulated >>>> incorrectly or acknowledge that you cannot. >>> >>> Why should I? >>> >>> (a) It's your bug to find. >> >> You will not accept that there is no bug until >> you look for this yourself and find none. > > You assume the bug, if any, is in the code. It isn't. Well, it might be; > I'd be very surprised if it were bug-free. But the real bug is in the > design. Hence (b) below. > You are the one trying to get away with saying that DD is not correctly simulated by HHH. As long as HHH emulates the instructions of DD according to the semantics of the x86 language then there is no bug in the code or anywhere else with the emulation of DD by HHH. Since your foundational error is right here no sense looking at any other points until this one is addressed. -- 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 | 2025-08-13 16:51 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <107itsv$3mbs$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125163 |
On 8/13/2025 4:49 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/13/2025 3:25 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> Blimey, olcott - 413 lines! Learn to snip, why don't you? >> >> On 13/08/2025 20:07, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/13/2025 1:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> >> <snip - count chevrons for attribs> >> >>>>> Point out the instruction that was emulated >>>>> incorrectly or acknowledge that you cannot. >>>> >>>> Why should I? >>>> >>>> (a) It's your bug to find. >>> >>> You will not accept that there is no bug until >>> you look for this yourself and find none. >> >> You assume the bug, if any, is in the code. It isn't. Well, it might >> be; I'd be very surprised if it were bug-free. But the real bug is in >> the design. Hence (b) below. >> > > You are the one trying to get away with saying > that DD is not correctly simulated by HHH. > > As long as HHH emulates the instructions of DD according > to the semantics of the x86 language then there is no bug > in the code or anywhere else with the emulation of DD by HHH. Which it doesn't because it aborts in violation of semantics of the x86 language. So the last instruction that was emulated was not emulated correctly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 16:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <107iuo8$2lnd$21@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125165 |
On 8/13/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote: > On 8/13/2025 4:49 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 8/13/2025 3:25 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> Blimey, olcott - 413 lines! Learn to snip, why don't you? >>> >>> On 13/08/2025 20:07, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/13/2025 1:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> >>> <snip - count chevrons for attribs> >>> >>>>>> Point out the instruction that was emulated >>>>>> incorrectly or acknowledge that you cannot. >>>>> >>>>> Why should I? >>>>> >>>>> (a) It's your bug to find. >>>> >>>> You will not accept that there is no bug until >>>> you look for this yourself and find none. >>> >>> You assume the bug, if any, is in the code. It isn't. Well, it might >>> be; I'd be very surprised if it were bug-free. But the real bug is in >>> the design. Hence (b) below. >>> >> >> You are the one trying to get away with saying >> that DD is not correctly simulated by HHH. >> >> As long as HHH emulates the instructions of DD according >> to the semantics of the x86 language then there is no bug >> in the code or anywhere else with the emulation of DD by HHH. > > Which it doesn't because it aborts in violation of semantics of the x86 > language. So the last instruction that was emulated was not emulated > correctly. When HHH(DD) does report on the actual behavior that its actual input actually specifies as measured by DD correctly simulated by HHH that includes that HHH does simulate an instance of itself simulating an instance of DD that does call yet another instance of HHH(DD) then HHH(DD)==0 is proven to be correct. -- 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 | 2025-08-13 17:08 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <107ius1$3mbs$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125170 |
On 8/13/2025 5:06 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/13/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 8/13/2025 4:49 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/13/2025 3:25 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> Blimey, olcott - 413 lines! Learn to snip, why don't you? >>>> >>>> On 13/08/2025 20:07, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 8/13/2025 1:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip - count chevrons for attribs> >>>> >>>>>>> Point out the instruction that was emulated >>>>>>> incorrectly or acknowledge that you cannot. >>>>>> >>>>>> Why should I? >>>>>> >>>>>> (a) It's your bug to find. >>>>> >>>>> You will not accept that there is no bug until >>>>> you look for this yourself and find none. >>>> >>>> You assume the bug, if any, is in the code. It isn't. Well, it might >>>> be; I'd be very surprised if it were bug-free. But the real bug is >>>> in the design. Hence (b) below. >>>> >>> >>> You are the one trying to get away with saying >>> that DD is not correctly simulated by HHH. >>> >>> As long as HHH emulates the instructions of DD according >>> to the semantics of the x86 language then there is no bug >>> in the code or anywhere else with the emulation of DD by HHH. >> >> Which it doesn't because it aborts in violation of semantics of the >> x86 language. So the last instruction that was emulated was not >> emulated correctly. > > When HHH(DD) does report on the actual behavior that its > actual input actually specifies as measured by DD correctly > simulated by HHH Then you don't have a measure because DD is not correctly simulated by HHH because it aborts in violation of semantics of the x86 language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 16:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <107iuui$2lnd$23@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125171 |
On 8/13/2025 4:08 PM, dbush wrote: > On 8/13/2025 5:06 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 8/13/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 8/13/2025 4:49 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/13/2025 3:25 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>> Blimey, olcott - 413 lines! Learn to snip, why don't you? >>>>> >>>>> On 13/08/2025 20:07, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 8/13/2025 1:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <snip - count chevrons for attribs> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Point out the instruction that was emulated >>>>>>>> incorrectly or acknowledge that you cannot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why should I? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (a) It's your bug to find. >>>>>> >>>>>> You will not accept that there is no bug until >>>>>> you look for this yourself and find none. >>>>> >>>>> You assume the bug, if any, is in the code. It isn't. Well, it >>>>> might be; I'd be very surprised if it were bug-free. But the real >>>>> bug is in the design. Hence (b) below. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You are the one trying to get away with saying >>>> that DD is not correctly simulated by HHH. >>>> >>>> As long as HHH emulates the instructions of DD according >>>> to the semantics of the x86 language then there is no bug >>>> in the code or anywhere else with the emulation of DD by HHH. >>> >>> Which it doesn't because it aborts in violation of semantics of the >>> x86 language. So the last instruction that was emulated was not >>> emulated correctly. >> >> When HHH(DD) does report on the actual behavior that its >> actual input actually specifies as measured by DD correctly >> simulated by HHH > > Then you don't have a measure because DD is not correctly simulated by > HHH because it aborts in violation of semantics of the x86 language. When HHH(DD) does report on the actual behavior that its actual input actually specifies as measured by DD correctly simulated by HHH that includes that HHH does simulate an instance of itself simulating an instance of DD that does call yet another instance of HHH(DD) then HHH(DD)==0 is proven to be correct. -- 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 | 2025-08-13 17:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <107iv50$3mbs$11@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125173 |
On 8/13/2025 5:09 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/13/2025 4:08 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 8/13/2025 5:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/13/2025 3:51 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 8/13/2025 4:49 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 8/13/2025 3:25 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>> Blimey, olcott - 413 lines! Learn to snip, why don't you? >>>>>> >>>>>> On 13/08/2025 20:07, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/13/2025 1:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip - count chevrons for attribs> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Point out the instruction that was emulated >>>>>>>>> incorrectly or acknowledge that you cannot. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why should I? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (a) It's your bug to find. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You will not accept that there is no bug until >>>>>>> you look for this yourself and find none. >>>>>> >>>>>> You assume the bug, if any, is in the code. It isn't. Well, it >>>>>> might be; I'd be very surprised if it were bug-free. But the real >>>>>> bug is in the design. Hence (b) below. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You are the one trying to get away with saying >>>>> that DD is not correctly simulated by HHH. >>>>> >>>>> As long as HHH emulates the instructions of DD according >>>>> to the semantics of the x86 language then there is no bug >>>>> in the code or anywhere else with the emulation of DD by HHH. >>>> >>>> Which it doesn't because it aborts in violation of semantics of the >>>> x86 language. So the last instruction that was emulated was not >>>> emulated correctly. >>> >>> When HHH(DD) does report on the actual behavior that its >>> actual input actually specifies as measured by DD correctly >>> simulated by HHH >> >> Then you don't have a measure because DD is not correctly simulated by >> HHH because it aborts in violation of semantics of the x86 language. > > << irrelevant copy-paste response >> > A copy-paste response that is unrelated to what you responded to is less that no rebuttal, and is in fact you admission that what was responded to is correct. So... Let the record show that Peter Olcott has admitted that HHH violates the semantics of the x86 language by aborting is simulation, and that DD is therefore NOT correctly simulated by HHH.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-13 22:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <107ivhb$4b3k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #125175 |
On 13/08/2025 22:13, dbush wrote: <snip> > Let the record show that Peter Olcott has admitted that HHH > violates the semantics of the x86 language by aborting is > simulation, and that DD is therefore NOT correctly simulated by HHH. Let the record further show that this is self-evident from DD's source code. Clearly, whatever HHH returns is wrong. Why has it taken Olcott 22 years not to notice this? -- 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 | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-14 06:43 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <ed74e471674298b109cb37c220d0e7ff231adf15.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #125178 |
On Wed, 2025-08-13 at 22:19 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 13/08/2025 22:13, dbush wrote: > > <snip> > > > Let the record show that Peter Olcott has admitted that HHH > > violates the semantics of the x86 language by aborting is > > simulation, and that DD is therefore NOT correctly simulated by HHH. > > Let the record further show that this is self-evident from DD's > source code. > > Clearly, whatever HHH returns is wrong. Why has it taken Olcott > 22 years not to notice this? Selective cogition blind from strong bias ,or unconditional belief. (That is just mild saying. Olcott is souless, his is a machine)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web