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 16 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 22 Next page →
| From | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-23 16:26 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <108cj1b$2788v$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #126767 |
Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott: > The actual case is that you are too f-cking > stupid to find any mistake in my work. I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. And I can't understand why others here are arguing so vehemently against it. It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to respond at all, then maybe it will calm down.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-23 15:41 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <108cjur$26upo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126768 |
On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott: > >> The actual case is that you are too f-cking >> stupid to find any mistake in my work. > > I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly > for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. I beg your pardon? If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters? *Of course* it matters... IF he's right. He /isn't/ right, but /he/ doesn't know that. > And I can't understand why others here are arguing so vehemently > against it. It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to > respond at all, then maybe it will calm down. You start. -- 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 | Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-23 17:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <108clkj$28362$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #126775 |
Am 23.08.2025 um 16:41 schrieb Richard Heathfield: > On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott: >> >>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking >>> stupid to find any mistake in my work. >> >> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly >> for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. > > I beg your pardon? > > If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the > Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters? That has no practical relevance. > > *Of course* it matters... IF he's right. > > He /isn't/ right, but /he/ doesn't know that. > >> And I can't understand why others here are arguing so vehemently >> against it. It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to >> respond at all, then maybe it will calm down. > > You start. I don't argue against him in his sense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-23 10:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <108cmv2$273cg$10@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126779 |
On 8/23/2025 10:10 AM, Bonita Montero wrote: > Am 23.08.2025 um 16:41 schrieb Richard Heathfield: >> On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott: >>> >>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking >>>> stupid to find any mistake in my work. >>> >>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly >>> for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. >> >> I beg your pardon? >> >> If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the >> Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters? > > That has no practical relevance. > Like the practical relevance of proofs of total correctness. We could do something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Considered_harmful and restrict programming style so that termination is always provable. >> >> *Of course* it matters... IF he's right. >> >> He /isn't/ right, but /he/ doesn't know that. >> >>> And I can't understand why others here are arguing so vehemently >>> against it. It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to >>> respond at all, then maybe it will calm down. >> >> You start. > > I don't argue against him in his sense. > -- 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 | antispam@fricas.org (Waldek Hebisch) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-23 17:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <108cuqg$3gsa5$2@paganini.bofh.team> |
| In reply to | #126779 |
In comp.lang.c Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:41 schrieb Richard Heathfield:
>> On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>
>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking
>>>> stupid to find any mistake in my work.
>>>
>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly
>>> for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance.
>>
>> I beg your pardon?
>>
>> If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the
>> Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters?
>
> That has no practical relevance.
It has more relevance than you want to admit. If Pete had working
halting decider he would not waste time on newsgroups. He would
be making money, possibly as a service to business. Or he would
generate a lot of bitcoins. Or turn to illegal activity, for
example break encryption and use the break to hijack money flowing
in electronic exchanges.
Note that basically one call to halting decider gives you one
bit towards solution of arbitrary problem, with cost depending
only on length of problem description. Few thousends of calls
and you have broken RSA as it is currently used.
But Pete does not have working halting decider, so instead he tries
to get some attention in newsgroups. And that works quite well,
for many years he gets many replies. It is not clear if he has
psychic problem. Maybe he just has fun wasting others time
(which you could argue is a psychic problem too, but relatively
light compared to first alternative).
--
Waldek Hebisch
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-23 12:52 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <108cv4v$2a1ur$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126831 |
On 8/23/2025 12:46 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote: > In comp.lang.c Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:41 schrieb Richard Heathfield: >>> On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott: >>>> >>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking >>>>> stupid to find any mistake in my work. >>>> >>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly >>>> for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. >>> >>> I beg your pardon? >>> >>> If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the >>> Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters? >> >> That has no practical relevance. > > It has more relevance than you want to admit. If Pete had working > halting decider he would not waste time on newsgroups. He would > be making money, possibly as a service to business. Or he would > generate a lot of bitcoins. Or turn to illegal activity, for > example break encryption and use the break to hijack money flowing > in electronic exchanges. > > Note that basically one call to halting decider gives you one > bit towards solution of arbitrary problem, with cost depending > only on length of problem description. Few thousends of calls > and you have broken RSA as it is currently used. > > But Pete does not have working halting decider, so instead he tries > to get some attention in newsgroups. And that works quite well, > for many years he gets many replies. It is not clear if he has > psychic problem. Maybe he just has fun wasting others time > (which you could argue is a psychic problem too, but relatively > light compared to first alternative). > I have conclusively proved that in the conventional halting problem proofs the decider H would be correct to reject its input P on the basis that P correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state. That people ignore this verified fact as the basis for denigrating my work and my character is the kind of reckless disregard for the truth that loses defamation cases. -- 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 | 2025-08-23 13:54 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <108cv8k$27g71$14@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126834 |
On 8/23/2025 1:52 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/23/2025 12:46 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote: >> In comp.lang.c Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:41 schrieb Richard Heathfield: >>>> On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott: >>>>> >>>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking >>>>>> stupid to find any mistake in my work. >>>>> >>>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly >>>>> for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. >>>> >>>> I beg your pardon? >>>> >>>> If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the >>>> Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters? >>> >>> That has no practical relevance. >> >> It has more relevance than you want to admit. If Pete had working >> halting decider he would not waste time on newsgroups. He would >> be making money, possibly as a service to business. Or he would >> generate a lot of bitcoins. Or turn to illegal activity, for >> example break encryption and use the break to hijack money flowing >> in electronic exchanges. >> >> Note that basically one call to halting decider gives you one >> bit towards solution of arbitrary problem, with cost depending >> only on length of problem description. Few thousends of calls >> and you have broken RSA as it is currently used. >> >> But Pete does not have working halting decider, so instead he tries >> to get some attention in newsgroups. And that works quite well, >> for many years he gets many replies. It is not clear if he has >> psychic problem. Maybe he just has fun wasting others time >> (which you could argue is a psychic problem too, but relatively >> light compared to first alternative). >> > > I have conclusively proved that in the conventional > halting problem proofs the decider H Which is assumed to be a total halt decider satisfying the following requirements: Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of instructions) X described as <X> with input Y: A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes the following mapping: (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when executed directly > would be correct > to reject its input P on the basis that P correctly > simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated > final halt state. But since that's not the basis, doing so is not correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-23 14:28 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <3LnqQ.30533$h9h1.22452@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #126834 |
On 8/23/25 1:52 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/23/2025 12:46 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote: >> In comp.lang.c Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:41 schrieb Richard Heathfield: >>>> On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote: >>>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott: >>>>> >>>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking >>>>>> stupid to find any mistake in my work. >>>>> >>>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly >>>>> for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. >>>> >>>> I beg your pardon? >>>> >>>> If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the >>>> Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters? >>> >>> That has no practical relevance. >> >> It has more relevance than you want to admit. If Pete had working >> halting decider he would not waste time on newsgroups. He would >> be making money, possibly as a service to business. Or he would >> generate a lot of bitcoins. Or turn to illegal activity, for >> example break encryption and use the break to hijack money flowing >> in electronic exchanges. >> >> Note that basically one call to halting decider gives you one >> bit towards solution of arbitrary problem, with cost depending >> only on length of problem description. Few thousends of calls >> and you have broken RSA as it is currently used. >> >> But Pete does not have working halting decider, so instead he tries >> to get some attention in newsgroups. And that works quite well, >> for many years he gets many replies. It is not clear if he has >> psychic problem. Maybe he just has fun wasting others time >> (which you could argue is a psychic problem too, but relatively >> light compared to first alternative). >> > > I have conclusively proved that in the conventional > halting problem proofs the decider H would be correct > to reject its input P on the basis that P correctly > simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated > final halt state. > > That people ignore this verified fact as the basis > for denigrating my work and my character is the > kind of reckless disregard for the truth that loses > defamation cases. > No, you have proved yourself a LIAR, as the criteria for the Halting Problem is NOT the nonsense condition of "the input correctly simulated by the decider", unless THAT decide is the one that actually does the correct simulation, and that can NEVER indicate non-halting. The fact that your claim is ACTUALLY about some other input, based on a different decider than this one, being simulated by some other program. Since the inputs are not the same, except in your category error world where neighter the decider or the input are based on programs, it is just invalid. That you call your LIES to be "Verified Facts" just shows you to be a pathological liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-23 11:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <108cppf$273cg$16@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126775 |
On 8/23/2025 9:41 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote: >> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott: >> >>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking >>> stupid to find any mistake in my work. >> >> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly >> for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. > > I beg your pardon? > > If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the > Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters? > > *Of course* it matters... IF he's right. > Thus providing evidence that Bonita Montero is a mere troll. > He /isn't/ right, but /he/ doesn't know that. > *This is a fact proven true on the basis of its meaning* When 0 to ∞ instructions of DD are correctly simulated by HHH this simulated DD never reaches its own simulated "return" statement final halt state. >> And I can't understand why others here are arguing so vehemently >> against it. It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to >> respond at all, then maybe it will calm down. > > You start. > I don't let people get away with denying facts that are proven true by the meaning of their words. -- 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 | 2025-08-24 09:35 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <108efcl$2lh0j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126796 |
Op 23.aug.2025 om 18:21 schreef olcott: > On 8/23/2025 9:41 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 23/08/2025 15:26, Bonita Montero wrote: >>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott: >>> >>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking >>>> stupid to find any mistake in my work. >>> >>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly >>> for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. >> >> I beg your pardon? >> >> If he's right, the conventional proof of the undecidability of the >> Halting Problem is flawed. You don't think that matters? >> >> *Of course* it matters... IF he's right. >> > > Thus providing evidence that Bonita Montero is a mere troll. > >> He /isn't/ right, but /he/ doesn't know that. >> > > *This is a fact proven true on the basis of its meaning* > When 0 to ∞ instructions of DD are correctly > simulated by HHH this simulated DD never reaches > its own simulated "return" statement final halt state. As usual irrelevant claims. For each of these input it can been proven that the final halt state is specified in the input by using other means, like world-class simulators. The failure to reach the final halt state does not change that specification of the input. It only shows why simulation is not the correct tool. Not reaching the final halt state is a property of the simulator, not of the program specified in its input
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-23 10:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <108cmh9$273cg$9@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126768 |
On 8/23/2025 9:26 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>
>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking
>> stupid to find any mistake in my work.
>
> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly
> for years. I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance.
> And I can't understand why others here are arguing so vehemently
> against it. It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to
> respond at all, then maybe it will calm down.
The analog of the technology applied to the HP proofs
equally applies to the Tarski Undecidability theorem
thus enabling a Boolean True(Language L, Expression E)
to return TRUE for all expressions E of language L
that are proven true on the basis of their meaning.
True("English", "Donald Trump lied about election fraud")==TRUE
True("English", "Severe climate change is caused by humans")==TRUE
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-23 15:33 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <tblqQ.11435$tkKd.1110@fx17.ams4> |
| In reply to | #126782 |
On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 10:25:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 8/23/2025 9:26 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>
>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking stupid to find any mistake
>>> in my work.
>>
>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly for years.
>> I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. And I can't
>> understand why others here are arguing so vehemently against it. It's
>> obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to respond at all, then maybe
>> it will calm down.
>
> The analog of the technology applied to the HP proofs equally applies to
> the Tarski Undecidability theorem thus enabling a Boolean True(Language
> L, Expression E)
> to return TRUE for all expressions E of language L that are proven true
> on the basis of their meaning.
>
> True("English", "Donald Trump lied about election fraud")==TRUE
> True("English", "Severe climate change is caused by humans")==TRUE
True("English", "Halting Problem proofs have not been refuted by
Olcott")==TRUE
/Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-23 11:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <108cpun$273cg$17@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126785 |
On 8/23/2025 10:33 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 10:25:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
>
>> On 8/23/2025 9:26 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>
>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking stupid to find any mistake
>>>> in my work.
>>>
>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly for years.
>>> I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. And I can't
>>> understand why others here are arguing so vehemently against it. It's
>>> obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to respond at all, then maybe
>>> it will calm down.
>>
>> The analog of the technology applied to the HP proofs equally applies to
>> the Tarski Undecidability theorem thus enabling a Boolean True(Language
>> L, Expression E)
>> to return TRUE for all expressions E of language L that are proven true
>> on the basis of their meaning.
>>
>> True("English", "Donald Trump lied about election fraud")==TRUE
>> True("English", "Severe climate change is caused by humans")==TRUE
>
> True("English", "Halting Problem proofs have not been refuted by
> Olcott")==TRUE
>
> /Flibble
True("English",
"Halting Problem proofs have not "
"yet been completely refuted by Olcott")==TRUE
*This is proven entirely true on the sole basis of its meaning*
When 0 to ∞ instructions of DD are correctly
simulated by HHH this simulated DD never reaches
its own simulated "return" statement final halt state.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-23 16:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <xamqQ.6057$yb25.917@fx03.ams4> |
| In reply to | #126797 |
On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:23:51 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 8/23/2025 10:33 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 10:25:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/23/2025 9:26 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>>
>>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking stupid to find any
>>>>> mistake in my work.
>>>>
>>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly for
>>>> years.
>>>> I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. And I can't
>>>> understand why others here are arguing so vehemently against it. It's
>>>> obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to respond at all, then
>>>> maybe it will calm down.
>>>
>>> The analog of the technology applied to the HP proofs equally applies
>>> to the Tarski Undecidability theorem thus enabling a Boolean
>>> True(Language L, Expression E)
>>> to return TRUE for all expressions E of language L that are proven
>>> true on the basis of their meaning.
>>>
>>> True("English", "Donald Trump lied about election fraud")==TRUE
>>> True("English", "Severe climate change is caused by humans")==TRUE
>>
>> True("English", "Halting Problem proofs have not been refuted by
>> Olcott")==TRUE
>>
>> /Flibble
>
> True("English",
> "Halting Problem proofs have not "
> "yet been completely refuted by Olcott")==TRUE
>
> *This is proven entirely true on the sole basis of its meaning*
> When 0 to ∞ instructions of DD are correctly simulated by HHH this
> simulated DD never reaches its own simulated "return" statement final
> halt state.
The simulated DD may never reach its final state but nobody cares about
what your simulation does, what actually matters is what HHH reports (and
all deciders must report) to the REAL DD (the ultimate caller of HHH) and
then what the REAL DD does.
/Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-23 11:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <108crrs$273cg$24@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126806 |
On 8/23/2025 11:41 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:23:51 -0500, olcott wrote:
>
>> On 8/23/2025 10:33 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 10:25:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/23/2025 9:26 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking stupid to find any
>>>>>> mistake in my work.
>>>>>
>>>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly for
>>>>> years.
>>>>> I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. And I can't
>>>>> understand why others here are arguing so vehemently against it. It's
>>>>> obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to respond at all, then
>>>>> maybe it will calm down.
>>>>
>>>> The analog of the technology applied to the HP proofs equally applies
>>>> to the Tarski Undecidability theorem thus enabling a Boolean
>>>> True(Language L, Expression E)
>>>> to return TRUE for all expressions E of language L that are proven
>>>> true on the basis of their meaning.
>>>>
>>>> True("English", "Donald Trump lied about election fraud")==TRUE
>>>> True("English", "Severe climate change is caused by humans")==TRUE
>>>
>>> True("English", "Halting Problem proofs have not been refuted by
>>> Olcott")==TRUE
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>
>> True("English",
>> "Halting Problem proofs have not"
>> "yet been completely refuted by Olcott")==TRUE
>>
>> *This is proven entirely true on the sole basis of its meaning*
>> When 0 to ∞ instructions of DD are correctly simulated by HHH this
>> simulated DD never reaches its own simulated "return" statement final
>> halt state.
>
> The simulated DD may never reach its final state but nobody cares about
> what your simulation does,
*Unless they pay attention to this*
Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping
from their inputs...
and also realize that DD correctly simulated by HHH
does correctly measure the actual behavior actually
specified by the actual input...
> what actually matters is what HHH reports (and
Not at all. Not in the least little bit.
What matters is what HHH(DD) should report
on the basis of the actual behavior that the
actual input actually specifies as correctly
measured by DD correctly simulated by HHH.
Thus we can know that HHH(DD)==0 is correct.
> all deciders must report) to the REAL DD (the ultimate caller of HHH) and
> then what the REAL DD does.
>
> /Flibble
--
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 | 2025-08-23 17:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <stmqQ.5151$Mue3.4038@fx06.ams4> |
| In reply to | #126812 |
On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:56:28 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 8/23/2025 11:41 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:23:51 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/23/2025 10:33 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 10:25:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/23/2025 9:26 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking stupid to find any
>>>>>>> mistake in my work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly for
>>>>>> years.
>>>>>> I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. And I can't
>>>>>> understand why others here are arguing so vehemently against it.
>>>>>> It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to respond at all,
>>>>>> then maybe it will calm down.
>>>>>
>>>>> The analog of the technology applied to the HP proofs equally
>>>>> applies to the Tarski Undecidability theorem thus enabling a Boolean
>>>>> True(Language L, Expression E)
>>>>> to return TRUE for all expressions E of language L that are proven
>>>>> true on the basis of their meaning.
>>>>>
>>>>> True("English", "Donald Trump lied about election fraud")==TRUE
>>>>> True("English", "Severe climate change is caused by humans")==TRUE
>>>>
>>>> True("English", "Halting Problem proofs have not been refuted by
>>>> Olcott")==TRUE
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>> True("English",
>>> "Halting Problem proofs have not"
>>> "yet been completely refuted by Olcott")==TRUE
>>>
>>> *This is proven entirely true on the sole basis of its meaning*
>>> When 0 to ∞ instructions of DD are correctly simulated by HHH this
>>> simulated DD never reaches its own simulated "return" statement final
>>> halt state.
>>
>> The simulated DD may never reach its final state but nobody cares about
>> what your simulation does,
>
> *Unless they pay attention to this*
> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from their inputs...
>
> and also realize that DD correctly simulated by HHH does correctly
> measure the actual behavior actually specified by the actual input...
>
>> what actually matters is what HHH reports (and
>
> Not at all. Not in the least little bit.
It is all that matters as far as the Halting Problem is concerned: a halt
decider must report a decision to its caller. Why don't you just admit
that you are not working on the Halting Problem and its proofs at all?
> What matters is what HHH(DD) should report on the basis of the actual
> behavior that the actual input actually specifies as correctly measured
> by DD correctly simulated by HHH.
>
> Thus we can know that HHH(DD)==0 is correct.
If HHH(DD) reports non-halting to its CALLER, DD(), then DD() will halt
thus confirming that HHH gave the incorrect answer and that the extant
Haling Problem proofs remain unrefuted by you.
/Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-23 12:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <108csa0$273cg$27@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126815 |
On 8/23/2025 12:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:56:28 -0500, olcott wrote:
>
>> On 8/23/2025 11:41 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:23:51 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/23/2025 10:33 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 10:25:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/23/2025 9:26 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking stupid to find any
>>>>>>>> mistake in my work.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly for
>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>> I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. And I can't
>>>>>>> understand why others here are arguing so vehemently against it.
>>>>>>> It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to respond at all,
>>>>>>> then maybe it will calm down.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The analog of the technology applied to the HP proofs equally
>>>>>> applies to the Tarski Undecidability theorem thus enabling a Boolean
>>>>>> True(Language L, Expression E)
>>>>>> to return TRUE for all expressions E of language L that are proven
>>>>>> true on the basis of their meaning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True("English", "Donald Trump lied about election fraud")==TRUE
>>>>>> True("English", "Severe climate change is caused by humans")==TRUE
>>>>>
>>>>> True("English", "Halting Problem proofs have not been refuted by
>>>>> Olcott")==TRUE
>>>>>
>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>
>>>> True("English",
>>>> "Halting Problem proofs have not"
>>>> "yet been completely refuted by Olcott")==TRUE
>>>>
>>>> *This is proven entirely true on the sole basis of its meaning*
>>>> When 0 to ∞ instructions of DD are correctly simulated by HHH this
>>>> simulated DD never reaches its own simulated "return" statement final
>>>> halt state.
>>>
>>> The simulated DD may never reach its final state but nobody cares about
>>> what your simulation does,
>>
>> *Unless they pay attention to this*
>> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from their inputs...
>>
>> and also realize that DD correctly simulated by HHH does correctly
>> measure the actual behavior actually specified by the actual input...
>>
>>> what actually matters is what HHH reports (and
>>
>> Not at all. Not in the least little bit.
>
> It is all that matters as far as the Halting Problem is concerned: a halt
> decider must report a decision to its caller. Why don't you just admit
> that you are not working on the Halting Problem and its proofs at all?
>
Because that would be false.
>> What matters is what HHH(DD) should report on the basis of the actual
>> behavior that the actual input actually specifies as correctly measured
>> by DD correctly simulated by HHH.
>>
>> Thus we can know that HHH(DD)==0 is correct.
>
> If HHH(DD) reports non-halting to its CALLER, DD(), then DD() will halt
> thus confirming that HHH gave the incorrect answer and that the extant
> Haling Problem proofs remain unrefuted by you.
>
> /Flibble
Do I need to repeat this 100 million times before
you ever notice that I said it at least once?
Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping
from their inputs...
--
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 | 2025-08-23 17:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <fzmqQ.965$%6be.906@fx14.ams4> |
| In reply to | #126816 |
On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 12:04:00 -0500, olcott wrote:
> On 8/23/2025 12:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:56:28 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> On 8/23/2025 11:41 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:23:51 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 8/23/2025 10:33 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 10:25:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/23/2025 9:26 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>>>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking stupid to find any
>>>>>>>>> mistake in my work.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly for
>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>> I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. And I can't
>>>>>>>> understand why others here are arguing so vehemently against it.
>>>>>>>> It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to respond at all,
>>>>>>>> then maybe it will calm down.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The analog of the technology applied to the HP proofs equally
>>>>>>> applies to the Tarski Undecidability theorem thus enabling a
>>>>>>> Boolean True(Language L, Expression E)
>>>>>>> to return TRUE for all expressions E of language L that are proven
>>>>>>> true on the basis of their meaning.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True("English", "Donald Trump lied about election fraud")==TRUE
>>>>>>> True("English", "Severe climate change is caused by humans")==TRUE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True("English", "Halting Problem proofs have not been refuted by
>>>>>> Olcott")==TRUE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>
>>>>> True("English",
>>>>> "Halting Problem proofs have not"
>>>>> "yet been completely refuted by Olcott")==TRUE
>>>>>
>>>>> *This is proven entirely true on the sole basis of its meaning*
>>>>> When 0 to ∞ instructions of DD are correctly simulated by HHH this
>>>>> simulated DD never reaches its own simulated "return" statement
>>>>> final halt state.
>>>>
>>>> The simulated DD may never reach its final state but nobody cares
>>>> about what your simulation does,
>>>
>>> *Unless they pay attention to this*
>>> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from their inputs...
>>>
>>> and also realize that DD correctly simulated by HHH does correctly
>>> measure the actual behavior actually specified by the actual input...
>>>
>>>> what actually matters is what HHH reports (and
>>>
>>> Not at all. Not in the least little bit.
>>
>> It is all that matters as far as the Halting Problem is concerned: a
>> halt decider must report a decision to its caller. Why don't you just
>> admit that you are not working on the Halting Problem and its proofs at
>> all?
>>
>>
> Because that would be false.
>
>>> What matters is what HHH(DD) should report on the basis of the actual
>>> behavior that the actual input actually specifies as correctly
>>> measured by DD correctly simulated by HHH.
>>>
>>> Thus we can know that HHH(DD)==0 is correct.
>>
>> If HHH(DD) reports non-halting to its CALLER, DD(), then DD() will halt
>> thus confirming that HHH gave the incorrect answer and that the extant
>> Haling Problem proofs remain unrefuted by you.
>>
>> /Flibble
>
> Do I need to repeat this 100 million times before you ever notice that I
> said it at least once?
>
> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from their inputs..
How many times must I repeat to you that DD(), the caller of HHH, should
pass a *description* of itself to HHH; it is quite valid for DD to take on
two roles: caller and input.
/Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-23 12:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <108cspu$273cg$28@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126817 |
On 8/23/2025 12:07 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 12:04:00 -0500, olcott wrote:
>
>> On 8/23/2025 12:01 PM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:56:28 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/23/2025 11:41 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 11:23:51 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/23/2025 10:33 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 10:25:29 -0500, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 8/23/2025 9:26 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Am 23.08.2025 um 16:16 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The actual case is that you are too f-cking stupid to find any
>>>>>>>>>> mistake in my work.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I wonder why one has to pursue such a question so paranoidly for
>>>>>>>>> years.
>>>>>>>>> I mean, it's nothing that has practical relevance. And I can't
>>>>>>>>> understand why others here are arguing so vehemently against it.
>>>>>>>>> It's obvious that Pete is crazy. It's best not to respond at all,
>>>>>>>>> then maybe it will calm down.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The analog of the technology applied to the HP proofs equally
>>>>>>>> applies to the Tarski Undecidability theorem thus enabling a
>>>>>>>> Boolean True(Language L, Expression E)
>>>>>>>> to return TRUE for all expressions E of language L that are proven
>>>>>>>> true on the basis of their meaning.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> True("English", "Donald Trump lied about election fraud")==TRUE
>>>>>>>> True("English", "Severe climate change is caused by humans")==TRUE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> True("English", "Halting Problem proofs have not been refuted by
>>>>>>> Olcott")==TRUE
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /Flibble
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True("English",
>>>>>> "Halting Problem proofs have not"
>>>>>> "yet been completely refuted by Olcott")==TRUE
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *This is proven entirely true on the sole basis of its meaning*
>>>>>> When 0 to ∞ instructions of DD are correctly simulated by HHH this
>>>>>> simulated DD never reaches its own simulated "return" statement
>>>>>> final halt state.
>>>>>
>>>>> The simulated DD may never reach its final state but nobody cares
>>>>> about what your simulation does,
>>>>
>>>> *Unless they pay attention to this*
>>>> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from their inputs...
>>>>
>>>> and also realize that DD correctly simulated by HHH does correctly
>>>> measure the actual behavior actually specified by the actual input...
>>>>
>>>>> what actually matters is what HHH reports (and
>>>>
>>>> Not at all. Not in the least little bit.
>>>
>>> It is all that matters as far as the Halting Problem is concerned: a
>>> halt decider must report a decision to its caller. Why don't you just
>>> admit that you are not working on the Halting Problem and its proofs at
>>> all?
>>>
>>>
>> Because that would be false.
>>
>>>> What matters is what HHH(DD) should report on the basis of the actual
>>>> behavior that the actual input actually specifies as correctly
>>>> measured by DD correctly simulated by HHH.
>>>>
>>>> Thus we can know that HHH(DD)==0 is correct.
>>>
>>> If HHH(DD) reports non-halting to its CALLER, DD(), then DD() will halt
>>> thus confirming that HHH gave the incorrect answer and that the extant
>>> Haling Problem proofs remain unrefuted by you.
>>>
>>> /Flibble
>>
>> Do I need to repeat this 100 million times before you ever notice that I
>> said it at least once?
>>
>> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from their inputs..
>
> How many times must I repeat to you that DD(), the caller of HHH, should
> pass a *description* of itself to HHH; it is quite valid for DD to take on
> two roles: caller and input.
>
> /Flibble
In the same way that when Bill's identical twin brother
Bob robs a liquor store that Bill is equally guilty
because he looks the same as Bob.
--
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 | 2025-08-23 18:44 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: How is this answer not self-evident ? --- Recursive simulation |
| Message-ID | <108cul2$29s9o$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #126818 |
On 23/08/2025 18:12, olcott wrote: > On 8/23/2025 12:07 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On Sat, 23 Aug 2025 12:04:00 -0500, olcott wrote: <80-odd lines snipped> >>> Turing machine deciders only compute the mapping from their >>> inputs.. >> >> How many times must I repeat to you that DD(), the caller of >> HHH, should >> pass a *description* of itself to HHH; it is quite valid for DD >> to take on >> two roles: caller and input. >> >> /Flibble > > In the same way that when Bill's identical twin brother > Bob robs a liquor store that Bill is equally guilty > because he looks the same as Bob. Please explain what you imagine your analogy clarifies about your claim. -- 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]
Page 16 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web