Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #129289 > unrolled thread
| Started by | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-09-18 21:30 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-09-27 09:00 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 573 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
on deciding the undecidable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-18 21:30 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-18 16:52 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-18 22:02 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-18 17:11 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-19 18:19 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 13:24 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-19 18:35 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 13:47 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-19 18:53 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-19 19:14 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-19 19:22 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 15:01 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 14:59 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-09-19 18:51 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-19 19:03 +0000
Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 14:57 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-19 20:14 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-19 20:16 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 15:23 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-19 20:41 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-19 20:46 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-19 20:57 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-19 22:55 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-09-20 17:48 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 17:04 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-20 05:09 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-19 20:25 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 15:31 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-19 20:32 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 15:38 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-19 20:48 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 16:58 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-19 22:11 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 17:30 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-19 22:35 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 18:07 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-20 00:24 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 19:38 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 21:09 -0400
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-20 02:26 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 20:40 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 21:47 -0400
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-20 03:03 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 21:26 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-20 07:49 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-20 04:40 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 23:49 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-09-20 09:55 +0200
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-20 07:40 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-20 17:01 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-20 12:08 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-20 20:40 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-20 22:59 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-21 06:50 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-20 07:19 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-20 07:22 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-20 13:02 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-20 08:10 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-19 23:00 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 18:11 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-20 01:08 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-20 02:12 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 21:39 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-20 03:00 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 22:21 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-20 05:02 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-20 06:52 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-20 15:51 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-20 10:56 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-20 22:04 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-20 22:10 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-20 17:34 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-20 23:03 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-20 18:07 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-20 23:25 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-20 18:40 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-21 03:17 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-20 23:02 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-21 06:16 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-20 22:23 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-21 03:24 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-20 23:04 -0500
Olcott meets Buddha Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-21 05:56 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-21 06:28 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-21 05:35 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-20 21:54 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-21 06:21 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-21 05:29 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-21 07:06 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-21 07:16 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-21 09:19 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-21 08:42 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-21 10:24 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-09-21 09:49 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-21 11:53 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Correctness Defined !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-21 09:02 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-21 14:57 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-21 10:23 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-09-21 09:17 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-21 10:20 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-21 15:39 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-21 09:27 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-09-21 17:12 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-21 10:27 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-09-21 17:53 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-21 17:47 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-22 02:04 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-21 20:51 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-21 21:17 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-21 21:54 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-21 18:52 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-21 17:33 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-22 01:59 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-21 21:52 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-22 05:31 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-21 23:32 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-22 08:05 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-22 00:20 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-22 09:14 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-22 01:41 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-22 10:09 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-22 02:32 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-22 11:52 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-22 09:23 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-22 18:49 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-22 10:51 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-22 19:11 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-22 11:20 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-22 19:54 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-22 12:20 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 20:13 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 21:16 -0400
Re: Turing computable functions wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 09:22 +0800
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-23 07:15 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 12:55 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-22 11:08 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 13:56 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-23 19:10 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 12:18 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 12:32 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-23 19:37 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 13:08 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-23 21:22 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-09-24 01:00 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 19:15 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 19:53 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2025-09-24 01:16 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 19:05 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 21:08 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-24 06:35 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 23:59 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-24 07:11 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-24 18:18 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-25 03:11 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 04:26 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-23 19:26 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 13:31 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-22 20:10 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 18:17 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-23 07:00 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 10:02 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-23 16:29 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 10:35 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-23 17:08 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 11:29 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-23 18:18 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 12:35 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-23 18:46 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-09-23 17:21 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 14:17 -0400
Re: Turing computable functions joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-23 10:03 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 10:07 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-23 16:36 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 14:18 -0400
Re: Turing computable functions dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 15:12 -0400
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-21 14:23 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-21 19:45 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2025-09-21 09:36 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-21 11:33 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-21 06:33 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-21 07:54 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-21 21:34 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-21 21:10 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-21 23:20 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 16:40 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-22 04:57 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 16:16 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-22 14:19 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 16:44 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-22 14:53 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 17:04 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 16:46 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 08:04 +0800
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 18:50 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-22 21:12 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 23:29 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-22 21:34 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-22 23:42 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-22 21:53 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 09:16 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 10:24 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 12:43 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 11:07 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 13:22 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 14:30 -0400
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-23 21:51 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 11:34 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 13:49 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 12:07 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 14:24 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 12:29 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 14:45 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 12:52 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 15:03 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 13:10 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 15:15 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 13:40 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 19:31 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 19:33 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 19:57 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 20:49 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 21:06 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 21:09 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 22:03 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 22:05 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 22:18 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 22:06 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 20:19 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 20:51 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 22:04 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 22:14 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 22:15 -0700
church-turing thesis debunked dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 22:21 -0700
Re: church-turing thesis debunked "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 22:22 -0700
Re: church-turing thesis debunked dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 22:40 -0700
Re: church-turing thesis debunked "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 22:51 -0700
Re: church-turing thesis debunked dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 23:23 -0700
Re: church-turing thesis debunked "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 12:42 -0700
Re: church-turing thesis debunked --- LLM system review olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 08:30 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 21:02 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 23:08 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 21:25 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 23:49 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 22:04 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 00:09 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-23 22:18 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 22:20 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 08:10 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-24 09:24 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 08:16 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 08:04 -0400
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 14:44 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 22:07 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 22:12 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-24 06:42 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 08:45 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-24 17:10 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- BAD FAITH Dishonest Dialogue olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 13:33 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- BAD FAITH Dishonest Dialogue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 20:00 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- BAD FAITH Dishonest Dialogue olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 14:14 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- BAD FAITH Dishonest Dialogue Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 20:41 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- BAD FAITH Dishonest Dialogue Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-24 20:39 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- BAD FAITH Dishonest Dialogue olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 15:49 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- BAD FAITH Dishonest Dialogue Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-24 20:33 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- BAD FAITH Dishonest Dialogue olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 15:38 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- BAD FAITH Dishonest Dialogue Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-24 20:57 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- BAD FAITH Dishonest Dialogue olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 16:09 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 15:19 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-09-23 21:28 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-23 21:51 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 18:17 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-24 06:43 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 08:51 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-24 13:57 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 09:41 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 15:49 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 09:54 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 16:11 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 10:24 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 16:27 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 10:34 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 11:36 -0400
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 16:43 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 10:51 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 17:06 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 11:18 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 17:55 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-24 17:37 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 14:01 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 20:14 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 14:25 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 20:47 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 14:57 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 21:05 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 15:12 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 21:17 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 15:27 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 21:54 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-24 20:08 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 15:30 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 13:47 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 13:51 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-24 20:07 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 15:09 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-24 21:00 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 16:05 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 22:15 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 16:20 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 22:48 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 16:57 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 15:15 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 15:21 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 23:38 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 17:43 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 23:54 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 19:12 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-25 00:44 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 19:50 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 04:11 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 03:55 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 22:14 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 04:40 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 22:42 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-09-27 08:59 -0400
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-25 00:32 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 19:38 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 15:30 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 09:46 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- CHEATER Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 15:58 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-23 10:08 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 10:10 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-23 19:18 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 14:36 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-23 19:17 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 14:32 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-09-23 20:32 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-23 17:01 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-09-23 22:28 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 06:08 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 08:21 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 09:33 -0400
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 15:23 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-09-24 09:24 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 08:03 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 15:16 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 09:43 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 15:53 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-24 16:59 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 12:28 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-24 17:40 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 14:05 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 20:20 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 14:28 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 20:51 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 14:58 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 21:13 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 15:24 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 21:45 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-24 20:49 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 16:00 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 14:04 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 22:04 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-24 21:33 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 16:36 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-25 00:35 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 19:42 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-25 00:54 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 20:14 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-24 19:45 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 20:58 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-24 20:11 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 21:14 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 10:29 +0800
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-24 20:33 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 21:44 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-24 20:57 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 22:11 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-24 21:14 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 22:18 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-24 21:29 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 22:35 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-24 21:42 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 23:05 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-25 08:27 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 09:39 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-25 09:18 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 10:22 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-25 09:42 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 11:23 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-25 10:46 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 11:49 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-25 11:01 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 12:06 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 18:23 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-25 11:32 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 12:46 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-25 11:59 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 13:04 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-25 12:11 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 13:27 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 19:46 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-25 13:30 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 15:05 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 13:14 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-25 14:26 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 15:52 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-25 15:08 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 16:12 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-25 22:19 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 17:45 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-26 08:00 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-26 09:24 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-26 17:14 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 10:20 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 08:25 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-26 13:42 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-26 17:17 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 10:50 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-26 16:09 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-26 09:53 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-25 18:04 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 19:17 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-09-25 19:43 -0600
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-09-25 21:22 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 16:36 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 23:01 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 17:06 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 23:16 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-25 22:21 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 18:00 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-26 00:29 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 19:01 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-26 01:09 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 19:20 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-26 04:36 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-09-26 00:20 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 19:42 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-26 04:42 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-26 01:19 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 21:46 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-26 04:52 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 19:13 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 18:05 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 18:03 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 16:45 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 16:23 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 16:16 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 04:48 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 23:09 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 05:56 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 07:32 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 14:08 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 08:39 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 16:01 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-25 03:22 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-09-25 05:13 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 23:17 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-24 21:20 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 23:28 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 05:59 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 07:33 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 14:10 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-09-25 15:51 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 16:33 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-24 19:13 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions --- Honesty? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 21:33 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-25 03:17 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 22:21 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-25 14:49 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 10:14 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 16:37 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-09-25 15:55 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 04:19 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 22:22 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 04:52 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 23:15 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 06:04 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 07:35 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 14:14 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 08:42 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 16:05 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-25 14:44 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 09:46 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-25 15:24 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-25 11:51 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-25 19:05 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 16:28 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-25 04:09 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-09-25 05:06 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions --- Dishonesty olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 23:13 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-24 20:31 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 15:36 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 16:40 -0400
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 21:58 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-24 20:28 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 15:34 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-24 20:54 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 16:16 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 14:26 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 13:57 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 16:12 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-24 22:17 +0100
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 14:47 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 16:53 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 15:07 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 17:13 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 15:19 -0700
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-25 00:33 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 19:39 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-25 00:49 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 19:52 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-25 01:00 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-24 20:23 -0500
Re: Turing computable functions Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-25 19:07 +0000
Re: Turing computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-19 22:35 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-09-20 13:05 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-09-20 23:26 +0100
Re: on deciding the undecidable Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-09-21 11:46 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-18 21:59 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-18 23:03 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-19 01:43 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-19 01:55 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-18 20:59 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-19 02:44 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-19 06:33 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-09-19 04:55 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-19 06:08 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-27 21:19 +0100
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 15:28 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-09-27 21:55 +0100
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 19:15 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-09-28 11:52 +0300
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 09:21 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-09-28 20:18 -0400
Re: on deciding the undecidable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-09-29 11:28 +0300
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 10:08 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-09-29 22:32 -0400
Re: on deciding the undecidable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-09-30 13:27 +0300
limit a person's ability for critical thinking olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 12:53 -0500
Re: limit a person's ability for critical thinking Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-01 11:32 +0300
Re: limit a person's ability for critical thinking Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-02 07:53 -0400
Re: on deciding the undecidable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-09-27 12:44 +0300
Re: on deciding the undecidable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-27 12:50 -0700
Re: on deciding the undecidable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 12:55 -0700
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 12:19 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-27 09:12 -0700
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 11:15 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 11:39 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-27 10:13 -0700
Re: on deciding the undecidable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-27 16:51 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 12:36 -0700
Re: on deciding the undecidable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-09-27 09:32 -0700
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 13:58 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-09-28 20:18 -0400
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-27 10:36 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-27 16:50 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-09-28 11:49 +0300
Re: on deciding the undecidable sion F2 <sionf2@drum.cc> - 2025-09-28 06:30 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-28 09:19 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-09-29 12:26 +0300
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 10:25 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-09-29 16:55 +0000
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-29 13:12 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-09-29 22:32 -0400
Re: on deciding the undecidable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-09-29 22:32 -0400
Re: on deciding the undecidable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-09-30 13:31 +0300
Re: on deciding the undecidable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-09-30 12:56 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-01 11:36 +0300
Re: on deciding the undecidable Olcott's paradigm shift olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-01 08:24 -0500
Re: on deciding the undecidable Olcott's paradigm shift "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-01 22:16 -0700
Re: on deciding the undecidable Olcott's paradigm shift Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-02 11:39 +0300
Re: on deciding the undecidable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-09-28 20:18 -0400
Re: on deciding the undecidable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-09-27 09:00 -0400
Page 10 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 29 Next page →
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-21 07:54 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <10ao7f3$1iq2n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #129650 |
On 21/09/2025 07:33, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > Finding something both true and false is rather the characteristic > of Olcott's work; e.g. HHH1(DD) == 1 being deemed true (DD halts) > and HHH(DD) == 0 also being deemed true (DD does not halt). I sometimes wonder whether Olcott thinks that DD is like a man who steps in a bear-trap --- one D halts, and the other D goes round and round in circles. -- 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 | 2025-09-21 21:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <10aqck0$23t5n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #129616 |
On 9/20/2025 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote: > > olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> posted: > >> On 9/20/2025 6:03 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> >>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> posted: >>>> >>>> The conventional notion of the halting problem >>>> is providing the halt status of an input that >>>> is actually able to do the opposite of whatever >>>> halt status is determined. >>>> >>> >>> i'm sorry how's that relevant? >>> >> >> Solving the conventional halting problem >> is the same as providing the correct answer >> to this question: "What time is it (yes or no)?" > > ur halting decider does not function as a self-referential halting guard, > because it doesn't even respond to changing input for self-analysis ... > meaning it's not really computing an answer based on analyzing the computation. > a self-referential halting guard could at least reject the input as invalid. The way that it turns out to actually be is that there never was any actual input that could possibly do the opposite of what-ever its halt decider decided. When main-->DD does the opposite of what HHH(DD) reports it is not the actual input that is doing this. It is pretty nutty to think that the caller of a function is the actual input to this same function. I just can't understand how people that are not complete morons could make this mistake. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-21 21:10 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <10aqi74$24u63$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #129737 |
On 9/21/2025 7:34 PM, olcott wrote: > On 9/20/2025 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote: >> >> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> posted: >> >>> On 9/20/2025 6:03 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> >>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> posted: >>>>> >>>>> The conventional notion of the halting problem >>>>> is providing the halt status of an input that >>>>> is actually able to do the opposite of whatever >>>>> halt status is determined. >>>>> >>>> >>>> i'm sorry how's that relevant? >>>> >>> >>> Solving the conventional halting problem >>> is the same as providing the correct answer >>> to this question: "What time is it (yes or no)?" >> >> ur halting decider does not function as a self-referential halting guard, >> because it doesn't even respond to changing input for self-analysis ... >> meaning it's not really computing an answer based on analyzing the >> computation. >> > > a self-referential halting guard could at least > reject the input as invalid. > > The way that it turns out to actually be is that > there never was any actual input that could possibly > do the opposite of what-ever its halt decider decided. > > When main-->DD does the opposite of what HHH(DD) > reports it is not the actual input that is doing this. > > It is pretty nutty to think that the caller of a > function is the actual input to this same function. Are you totally nuts, or just a bit of a nut bar? Am I lying when I ask this? > > I just can't understand how people that are not > complete morons could make this mistake. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-21 23:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <10aqipq$251ln$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #129739 |
On 9/21/2025 11:10 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 9/21/2025 7:34 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 9/20/2025 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> >>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> posted: >>> >>>> On 9/20/2025 6:03 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>> >>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> posted: >>>>>> >>>>>> The conventional notion of the halting problem >>>>>> is providing the halt status of an input that >>>>>> is actually able to do the opposite of whatever >>>>>> halt status is determined. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> i'm sorry how's that relevant? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Solving the conventional halting problem >>>> is the same as providing the correct answer >>>> to this question: "What time is it (yes or no)?" >>> >>> ur halting decider does not function as a self-referential halting >>> guard, >>> because it doesn't even respond to changing input for self-analysis ... >>> meaning it's not really computing an answer based on analyzing the >>> computation. >>> >> >> a self-referential halting guard could at least >> reject the input as invalid. >> >> The way that it turns out to actually be is that >> there never was any actual input that could possibly >> do the opposite of what-ever its halt decider decided. >> >> When main-->DD does the opposite of what HHH(DD) >> reports it is not the actual input that is doing this. >> >> It is pretty nutty to think that the caller of a >> function is the actual input to this same function. > > Are you totally nuts, or just a bit of a nut bar? Am I lying when I ask > this? > That or you are very ignorant. >> >> I just can't understand how people that are not >> complete morons could make this mistake. >> > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 16:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <10asmop$2me0h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #129744 |
On 9/21/2025 9:20 PM, olcott wrote: > On 9/21/2025 11:10 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 9/21/2025 7:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 9/20/2025 6:25 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> >>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> posted: >>>> >>>>> On 9/20/2025 6:03 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> posted: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The conventional notion of the halting problem >>>>>>> is providing the halt status of an input that >>>>>>> is actually able to do the opposite of whatever >>>>>>> halt status is determined. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> i'm sorry how's that relevant? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Solving the conventional halting problem >>>>> is the same as providing the correct answer >>>>> to this question: "What time is it (yes or no)?" >>>> >>>> ur halting decider does not function as a self-referential halting >>>> guard, >>>> because it doesn't even respond to changing input for self-analysis ... >>>> meaning it's not really computing an answer based on analyzing the >>>> computation. >>>> >>> >>> a self-referential halting guard could at least >>> reject the input as invalid. >>> >>> The way that it turns out to actually be is that >>> there never was any actual input that could possibly >>> do the opposite of what-ever its halt decider decided. >>> >>> When main-->DD does the opposite of what HHH(DD) >>> reports it is not the actual input that is doing this. >>> >>> It is pretty nutty to think that the caller of a >>> function is the actual input to this same function. >> >> Are you totally nuts, or just a bit of a nut bar? Am I lying when I >> ask this? >> > > That or you are very ignorant. Fair enough. I can guess that you are not lying when you state this? ;^) I can say that you are a bit ignorant as well form time to time. One point, when you suggested that AppleSoft BASIC is not able to use recursion? >>> I just can't understand how people that are not >>> complete morons could make this mistake. Ditto.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 04:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <20250921215210.439@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #129737 |
On 2025-09-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > a self-referential halting guard could at least > reject the input as invalid. > > The way that it turns out to actually be is that > there never was any actual input that could possibly > do the opposite of what-ever its halt decider decided. > > When main-->DD does the opposite of what HHH(DD) > reports it is not the actual input that is doing this. That DD is a bona fide Turing Machine that must be decided in order to have a total halting decider. > It is pretty nutty to think that the caller of a > function is the actual input to this same function. That still points to halting being universally incomputable. We can phrase in terms that since the diagonal test case has the last word (adjusting its behavior to a decision that is made first), then effectively its behavior is "none of the business" of that decider, one way or another. For every proposed decider we can find inputs that are "none of their business". Those excluded inputs are bona fide Turing Machines, and so no decider is a total decider. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 16:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <10asebd$2kfr3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #129747 |
On 9/21/2025 11:57 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-09-22, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> a self-referential halting guard could at least >> reject the input as invalid. >> >> The way that it turns out to actually be is that >> there never was any actual input that could possibly >> do the opposite of what-ever its halt decider decided. >> >> When main-->DD does the opposite of what HHH(DD) >> reports it is not the actual input that is doing this. > > That DD is a bona fide Turing Machine that must be decided > in order to have a total halting decider. > HHH is a correct termination analyzer either way. That you pretend to not understand non-halting behavior patterns does not change this. >> It is pretty nutty to think that the caller of a >> function is the actual input to this same function. > > That still points to halting being universally incomputable. > In the same way that the square root of a dead rabbit is uncomputable. > We can phrase in terms that since the diagonal test case has the last > word (adjusting its behavior to a decision that is made first), then > effectively its behavior is "none of the business" of that decider, > one way or another. > *The diagonal case has never actually existed* Deciders have always been defined to compute the mapping from their inputs to the semantic or syntactic property that this actual input actually specifies. Ignoring this is not a rebuttal. > For every proposed decider we can find inputs that are "none of their > business". Those excluded inputs are bona fide Turing Machines, and so no > decider is a total decider. > They never have been actual inputs. main--->DD--->HHH(DD) *main--->DD is not an input to HHH* Anyone that has much of a clue about the semantics of C would know this. It is flat out nutty to think that a caller of a function it exactly 100% ONE-AND-THE-SAME thing as its input. The only reason that anyone would stick to this view is that they value rebuttal enormously more than they value truth. Although atheists won't care this could get them sent to actual Hell if such a place exists. -- 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 | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 14:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <10asehd$2kgok$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #129803 |
On 9/22/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote: > *The diagonal case has never actually existed* context-sensitive deciders can handle all the diagonal arguments -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic programmatic considerations like halting analysis. please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 16:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <10asfv9$2krlp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #129804 |
On 9/22/2025 4:19 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 9/22/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote: >> *The diagonal case has never actually existed* > > context-sensitive deciders can handle all the diagonal arguments > Yet may not be Turing computable. Alternatively if they can compute something that Turing machines cannot compute they may refute the Church-Turing thesis. I changed the name of this post to account for that. [Turing computable functions] You can't see that in threaded view of NewsGrouper. -- 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 | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 14:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <10asgg1$2kvbt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #129806 |
On 9/22/25 2:44 PM, olcott wrote: > On 9/22/2025 4:19 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 9/22/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>> *The diagonal case has never actually existed* >> >> context-sensitive deciders can handle all the diagonal arguments >> > > Yet may not be Turing computable. fair point and that's a complex question. turing machines don't have the machinery to directly compute it because TMs lacks reflectivity. but we can update TMs with reflective to produce reflective TMs: RTMs furthermore, TMs can simulate RTMs just fine cause nothing about the reflected information is outside TM recognizability, it's just that TMs lack the specific machinery themselves to access information reflected about themselves. > Alternatively if they can compute something > that Turing machines cannot compute they may > refute the Church-Turing thesis. i may be questioning the church-turing thesis to a degree. but it's complicated, i do believe RTMs can be fully simulated by TMs, it's just that the results cannot apply to TMs themsevles. > I changed the name of this post to account for that. > [Turing computable functions] > You can't see that in threaded view of NewsGrouper. i moved to thunderbird and have started browsing comp.theory in unthreaded view cause thunderbirds threads go too deep (newsgrouper does threads a little better by not indenting chains of replies) i do see the name change tho kinda stopped worrying about "what thread" it is here. -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic programmatic considerations like halting analysis. please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 17:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <10ash5m$2l4rp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #129807 |
On 9/22/2025 4:53 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 9/22/25 2:44 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 9/22/2025 4:19 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> On 9/22/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> *The diagonal case has never actually existed* >>> >>> context-sensitive deciders can handle all the diagonal arguments >>> >> >> Yet may not be Turing computable. > > fair point and that's a complex question. turing machines don't have the > machinery to directly compute it because TMs lacks reflectivity. > > but we can update TMs with reflective to produce reflective TMs: RTMs > > furthermore, TMs can simulate RTMs just fine cause nothing about the > reflected information is outside TM recognizability, it's just that TMs > lack the specific machinery themselves to access information reflected > about themselves. > The conventional halting problem counter example would not take this extra information as an argument. If a function needs something that it cannot take as an argument that it cannot derive on the basis of the argument that it does take then its seems that Turing machines cannot do this. Historically this means that computer scientists will write you off as a crank. >> Alternatively if they can compute something >> that Turing machines cannot compute they may >> refute the Church-Turing thesis. > > i may be questioning the church-turing thesis to a degree. > > but it's complicated, i do believe RTMs can be fully simulated by TMs, > it's just that the results cannot apply to TMs themsevles. >> I changed the name of this post to account for that. >> [Turing computable functions] >> You can't see that in threaded view of NewsGrouper. > If you can go back to your other thread and explain the gist of your idea I might be able to get it. A fire hose degree of details is too overwhelming. The gist of my idea is the I have created a termination analyzer that does correctly determine that the conventional counter example input to the halting problem proofs does specify non-halting behavior. It has taken me thousands of hours of perfecting those few words. > i moved to thunderbird and have started browsing comp.theory in > unthreaded view cause thunderbirds threads go too deep (newsgrouper does > threads a little better by not indenting chains of replies) > > i do see the name change tho kinda stopped worrying about "what thread" > it is here. > When you always see the new name then it is easier to stay one topic or change it to a new topic. -- 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 | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 16:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <10asn49$2me0h$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #129809 |
On 9/22/2025 3:04 PM, olcott wrote: > On 9/22/2025 4:53 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 9/22/25 2:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 9/22/2025 4:19 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> On 9/22/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> *The diagonal case has never actually existed* >>>> >>>> context-sensitive deciders can handle all the diagonal arguments >>>> >>> >>> Yet may not be Turing computable. >> >> fair point and that's a complex question. turing machines don't have >> the machinery to directly compute it because TMs lacks reflectivity. >> >> but we can update TMs with reflective to produce reflective TMs: RTMs >> >> furthermore, TMs can simulate RTMs just fine cause nothing about the >> reflected information is outside TM recognizability, it's just that >> TMs lack the specific machinery themselves to access information >> reflected about themselves. >> > > The conventional halting problem counter > example would not take this extra information > as an argument. > > If a function needs something that it cannot > take as an argument that it cannot derive on > the basis of the argument that it does take > then its seems that Turing machines cannot > do this. > > Historically this means that computer > scientists will write you off as a crank. > >>> Alternatively if they can compute something >>> that Turing machines cannot compute they may >>> refute the Church-Turing thesis. >> >> i may be questioning the church-turing thesis to a degree. >> >> but it's complicated, i do believe RTMs can be fully simulated by TMs, >> it's just that the results cannot apply to TMs themsevles. >>> I changed the name of this post to account for that. >>> [Turing computable functions] >>> You can't see that in threaded view of NewsGrouper. >> > > If you can go back to your other thread and explain > the gist of your idea I might be able to get it. > A fire hose degree of details is too overwhelming. > > The gist of my idea is the I have created a termination > analyzer that does correctly determine that the conventional > counter example input to the halting problem proofs does > specify non-halting behavior. > > It has taken me thousands of hours of perfecting > those few words. > >> i moved to thunderbird and have started browsing comp.theory in >> unthreaded view cause thunderbirds threads go too deep (newsgrouper >> does threads a little better by not indenting chains of replies) >> >> i do see the name change tho kinda stopped worrying about "what >> thread" it is here. >> > > When you always see the new name then it is > easier to stay one topic or change it to a > new topic. > Well, your test cases are so damn simple that they do not need any simulator at all. Heck, a little kid learning BASIC can see that the following is non-halting, and lying at the same time wrt what it outputs over and over again to the screen? lol: _______________ 10 PRINT "I SHALL HALT..." 20 GOTO 10 _______________ ;^) You cannot just inject something in there because that would be altering the program under consideration, right? For instance: _______________ 10 PRINT "I SHALL HALT..." 15 END : REM Hummm.... WTF!?!?!? 20 GOTO 10 _______________ Right? What am I missing here?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-23 08:04 +0800 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <ae03ffc11f87dd27eca4b7a38d00b80115988a44.camel@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #129814 |
On Mon, 2025-09-22 at 16:46 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 9/22/2025 3:04 PM, olcott wrote: > > On 9/22/2025 4:53 PM, dart200 wrote: > > > On 9/22/25 2:44 PM, olcott wrote: > > > > On 9/22/2025 4:19 PM, dart200 wrote: > > > > > On 9/22/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote: > > > > > > *The diagonal case has never actually existed* > > > > > > > > > > context-sensitive deciders can handle all the diagonal arguments > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yet may not be Turing computable. > > > > > > fair point and that's a complex question. turing machines don't have > > > the machinery to directly compute it because TMs lacks reflectivity. > > > > > > but we can update TMs with reflective to produce reflective TMs: RTMs > > > > > > furthermore, TMs can simulate RTMs just fine cause nothing about the > > > reflected information is outside TM recognizability, it's just that > > > TMs lack the specific machinery themselves to access information > > > reflected about themselves. > > > > > > > The conventional halting problem counter > > example would not take this extra information > > as an argument. > > > > If a function needs something that it cannot > > take as an argument that it cannot derive on > > the basis of the argument that it does take > > then its seems that Turing machines cannot > > do this. > > > > Historically this means that computer > > scientists will write you off as a crank. > > > > > > Alternatively if they can compute something > > > > that Turing machines cannot compute they may > > > > refute the Church-Turing thesis. > > > > > > i may be questioning the church-turing thesis to a degree. > > > > > > but it's complicated, i do believe RTMs can be fully simulated by TMs, > > > it's just that the results cannot apply to TMs themsevles. > > > > I changed the name of this post to account for that. > > > > [Turing computable functions] > > > > You can't see that in threaded view of NewsGrouper. > > > > > > > If you can go back to your other thread and explain > > the gist of your idea I might be able to get it. > > A fire hose degree of details is too overwhelming. > > > > The gist of my idea is the I have created a termination > > analyzer that does correctly determine that the conventional > > counter example input to the halting problem proofs does > > specify non-halting behavior. > > > > It has taken me thousands of hours of perfecting > > those few words. > > > > > i moved to thunderbird and have started browsing comp.theory in > > > unthreaded view cause thunderbirds threads go too deep (newsgrouper > > > does threads a little better by not indenting chains of replies) > > > > > > i do see the name change tho kinda stopped worrying about "what > > > thread" it is here. > > > > > > > When you always see the new name then it is > > easier to stay one topic or change it to a > > new topic. > > > > Well, your test cases are so damn simple that they do not need any > simulator at all. Not for olcott. olcott needs to use debugger to understand (prove) his C statement (and still get it wrong). So he thinks the other people are the same, or worse than he is (ignorant of the 'x86 semantics' fact) > Heck, a little kid learning BASIC can see that the > following is non-halting, and lying at the same time wrt what it outputs > over and over again to the screen? lol: > _______________ > 10 PRINT "I SHALL HALT..." > 20 GOTO 10 > _______________ > > ;^) > > You cannot just inject something in there because that would be altering > the program under consideration, right? For instance: > _______________ > 10 PRINT "I SHALL HALT..." > 15 END : REM Hummm.... WTF!?!?!? > 20 GOTO 10 > _______________ > > Right? What am I missing here? There are profound stupidity, intelligent stupidity,... Mensa-3% stupidity Yes, missed a lot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 18:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <10asud6$2nq00$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #129817 |
On 9/22/2025 5:04 PM, wij wrote: > On Mon, 2025-09-22 at 16:46 -0700, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 9/22/2025 3:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 9/22/2025 4:53 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> On 9/22/25 2:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 9/22/2025 4:19 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>> On 9/22/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> *The diagonal case has never actually existed* >>>>>> >>>>>> context-sensitive deciders can handle all the diagonal arguments >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yet may not be Turing computable. >>>> >>>> fair point and that's a complex question. turing machines don't have >>>> the machinery to directly compute it because TMs lacks reflectivity. >>>> >>>> but we can update TMs with reflective to produce reflective TMs: RTMs >>>> >>>> furthermore, TMs can simulate RTMs just fine cause nothing about the >>>> reflected information is outside TM recognizability, it's just that >>>> TMs lack the specific machinery themselves to access information >>>> reflected about themselves. >>>> >>> >>> The conventional halting problem counter >>> example would not take this extra information >>> as an argument. >>> >>> If a function needs something that it cannot >>> take as an argument that it cannot derive on >>> the basis of the argument that it does take >>> then its seems that Turing machines cannot >>> do this. >>> >>> Historically this means that computer >>> scientists will write you off as a crank. >>> >>>>> Alternatively if they can compute something >>>>> that Turing machines cannot compute they may >>>>> refute the Church-Turing thesis. >>>> >>>> i may be questioning the church-turing thesis to a degree. >>>> >>>> but it's complicated, i do believe RTMs can be fully simulated by TMs, >>>> it's just that the results cannot apply to TMs themsevles. >>>>> I changed the name of this post to account for that. >>>>> [Turing computable functions] >>>>> You can't see that in threaded view of NewsGrouper. >>>> >>> >>> If you can go back to your other thread and explain >>> the gist of your idea I might be able to get it. >>> A fire hose degree of details is too overwhelming. >>> >>> The gist of my idea is the I have created a termination >>> analyzer that does correctly determine that the conventional >>> counter example input to the halting problem proofs does >>> specify non-halting behavior. >>> >>> It has taken me thousands of hours of perfecting >>> those few words. >>> >>>> i moved to thunderbird and have started browsing comp.theory in >>>> unthreaded view cause thunderbirds threads go too deep (newsgrouper >>>> does threads a little better by not indenting chains of replies) >>>> >>>> i do see the name change tho kinda stopped worrying about "what >>>> thread" it is here. >>>> >>> >>> When you always see the new name then it is >>> easier to stay one topic or change it to a >>> new topic. >>> >> >> Well, your test cases are so damn simple that they do not need any >> simulator at all. > > Not for olcott. > olcott needs to use debugger to understand (prove) his C statement (and still > get it wrong). So he thinks the other people are the same, or worse than > he is (ignorant of the 'x86 semantics' fact) > >> Heck, a little kid learning BASIC can see that the >> following is non-halting, and lying at the same time wrt what it outputs >> over and over again to the screen? lol: >> _______________ >> 10 PRINT "I SHALL HALT..." >> 20 GOTO 10 >> _______________ >> >> ;^) >> >> You cannot just inject something in there because that would be altering >> the program under consideration, right? For instance: >> _______________ >> 10 PRINT "I SHALL HALT..." >> 15 END : REM Hummm.... WTF!?!?!? >> 20 GOTO 10 >> _______________ >> >> Right? What am I missing here? > > There are profound stupidity, intelligent stupidity,... Mensa-3% stupidity > Yes, missed a lot. > Shit man. It kind of seems like Olcott wanted to dance to the Ritz: (Taco - Puttin' On The Ritz (Official Video)) https://youtu.be/YsGjFh1ke44?list=RDYsGjFh1ke44 to his discovery?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 21:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <10at6o7$2phph$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #129809 |
On 9/22/25 3:04 PM, olcott wrote: > On 9/22/2025 4:53 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 9/22/25 2:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 9/22/2025 4:19 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> On 9/22/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> *The diagonal case has never actually existed* >>>> >>>> context-sensitive deciders can handle all the diagonal arguments >>>> >>> >>> Yet may not be Turing computable. >> >> fair point and that's a complex question. turing machines don't have >> the machinery to directly compute it because TMs lacks reflectivity. >> >> but we can update TMs with reflective to produce reflective TMs: RTMs >> >> furthermore, TMs can simulate RTMs just fine cause nothing about the >> reflected information is outside TM recognizability, it's just that >> TMs lack the specific machinery themselves to access information >> reflected about themselves. >> > > The conventional halting problem counter > example would not take this extra information > as an argument. > > If a function needs something that it cannot > take as an argument that it cannot derive on > the basis of the argument that it does take > then its seems that Turing machines cannot > do this. > > Historically this means that computer > scientists will write you off as a crank. > >>> Alternatively if they can compute something >>> that Turing machines cannot compute they may >>> refute the Church-Turing thesis. >> >> i may be questioning the church-turing thesis to a degree. >> >> but it's complicated, i do believe RTMs can be fully simulated by TMs, >> it's just that the results cannot apply to TMs themsevles. >>> I changed the name of this post to account for that. >>> [Turing computable functions] >>> You can't see that in threaded view of NewsGrouper. >> > > If you can go back to your other thread and explain > the gist of your idea I might be able to get it. > A fire hose degree of details is too overwhelming. i don't know what others don't know, would you be able to comment on where exactly you get lost? even if it's like the first sentence... > > The gist of my idea is the I have created a termination > analyzer that does correctly determine that the conventional > counter example input to the halting problem proofs does > specify non-halting behavior. you've spend thousands of hours convincing urself that the semantics of machine descriptions are somehow different than the semantics of the machines they describe. i will never accept that, unfortunately... > It has taken me thousands of hours of perfecting > those few words. > >> i moved to thunderbird and have started browsing comp.theory in >> unthreaded view cause thunderbirds threads go too deep (newsgrouper >> does threads a little better by not indenting chains of replies) >> >> i do see the name change tho kinda stopped worrying about "what >> thread" it is here. >> > > When you always see the new name then it is > easier to stay one topic or change it to a > new topic. > -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic programmatic considerations like halting analysis. please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 23:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <10at7mt$2pml5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #129843 |
On 9/22/2025 11:12 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 9/22/25 3:04 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 9/22/2025 4:53 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> On 9/22/25 2:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 9/22/2025 4:19 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>> On 9/22/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> *The diagonal case has never actually existed* >>>>> >>>>> context-sensitive deciders can handle all the diagonal arguments >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yet may not be Turing computable. >>> >>> fair point and that's a complex question. turing machines don't have >>> the machinery to directly compute it because TMs lacks reflectivity. >>> >>> but we can update TMs with reflective to produce reflective TMs: RTMs >>> >>> furthermore, TMs can simulate RTMs just fine cause nothing about the >>> reflected information is outside TM recognizability, it's just that >>> TMs lack the specific machinery themselves to access information >>> reflected about themselves. >>> >> >> The conventional halting problem counter >> example would not take this extra information >> as an argument. >> >> If a function needs something that it cannot >> take as an argument that it cannot derive on >> the basis of the argument that it does take >> then its seems that Turing machines cannot >> do this. >> >> Historically this means that computer >> scientists will write you off as a crank. >> >>>> Alternatively if they can compute something >>>> that Turing machines cannot compute they may >>>> refute the Church-Turing thesis. >>> >>> i may be questioning the church-turing thesis to a degree. >>> >>> but it's complicated, i do believe RTMs can be fully simulated by >>> TMs, it's just that the results cannot apply to TMs themsevles. >>>> I changed the name of this post to account for that. >>>> [Turing computable functions] >>>> You can't see that in threaded view of NewsGrouper. >>> >> >> If you can go back to your other thread and explain >> the gist of your idea I might be able to get it. >> A fire hose degree of details is too overwhelming. > > i don't know what others don't know, would you be able to comment on > where exactly you get lost? even if it's like the first sentence... > I need the whole essence of your system summed up in one sentence. >> >> The gist of my idea is the I have created a termination >> analyzer that does correctly determine that the conventional >> counter example input to the halting problem proofs does >> specify non-halting behavior. > > you've spend thousands of hours convincing urself that the semantics of > machine descriptions are somehow different than the semantics of the > machines they describe. > You phrased that incorrectly. I have conclusively proven beyond all possible doubt that DD simulated by HHH has different behavior than DD simulated by HHH1. On 9/19/2025 1:38 PM, joes wrote: > DD calling HHH and not HHH1, relative to itself? > DD is the diagonal program of HHH, not HHH1. > > i will never accept that, unfortunately... > >> It has taken me thousands of hours of perfecting >> those few words. >> >>> i moved to thunderbird and have started browsing comp.theory in >>> unthreaded view cause thunderbirds threads go too deep (newsgrouper >>> does threads a little better by not indenting chains of replies) >>> >>> i do see the name change tho kinda stopped worrying about "what >>> thread" it is here. >>> >> >> When you always see the new name then it is >> easier to stay one topic or change it to a >> new topic. >> > > -- 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 | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 21:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <10at813$2popf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #129845 |
On 9/22/25 9:29 PM, olcott wrote: > On 9/22/2025 11:12 PM, dart200 wrote: >> On 9/22/25 3:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 9/22/2025 4:53 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>> On 9/22/25 2:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 9/22/2025 4:19 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>> On 9/22/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> *The diagonal case has never actually existed* >>>>>> >>>>>> context-sensitive deciders can handle all the diagonal arguments >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Yet may not be Turing computable. >>>> >>>> fair point and that's a complex question. turing machines don't have >>>> the machinery to directly compute it because TMs lacks reflectivity. >>>> >>>> but we can update TMs with reflective to produce reflective TMs: RTMs >>>> >>>> furthermore, TMs can simulate RTMs just fine cause nothing about the >>>> reflected information is outside TM recognizability, it's just that >>>> TMs lack the specific machinery themselves to access information >>>> reflected about themselves. >>>> >>> >>> The conventional halting problem counter >>> example would not take this extra information >>> as an argument. >>> >>> If a function needs something that it cannot >>> take as an argument that it cannot derive on >>> the basis of the argument that it does take >>> then its seems that Turing machines cannot >>> do this. >>> >>> Historically this means that computer >>> scientists will write you off as a crank. >>> >>>>> Alternatively if they can compute something >>>>> that Turing machines cannot compute they may >>>>> refute the Church-Turing thesis. >>>> >>>> i may be questioning the church-turing thesis to a degree. >>>> >>>> but it's complicated, i do believe RTMs can be fully simulated by >>>> TMs, it's just that the results cannot apply to TMs themsevles. >>>>> I changed the name of this post to account for that. >>>>> [Turing computable functions] >>>>> You can't see that in threaded view of NewsGrouper. >>>> >>> >>> If you can go back to your other thread and explain >>> the gist of your idea I might be able to get it. >>> A fire hose degree of details is too overwhelming. >> >> i don't know what others don't know, would you be able to comment on >> where exactly you get lost? even if it's like the first sentence... >> > > I need the whole essence of your system > summed up in one sentence. context-sensitive deciders respond to context as much as they respond to input, meaning when run within a basic diagonal program they can return a different answer than when call elsewhere, allowing for: (1) the ability to avoid the decision paradox produced by the diagonal, (2) retain the ability to convey the truth of the matter in all other non-paradoxical contexts. > >>> >>> The gist of my idea is the I have created a termination >>> analyzer that does correctly determine that the conventional >>> counter example input to the halting problem proofs does >>> specify non-halting behavior. >> >> you've spend thousands of hours convincing urself that the semantics >> of machine descriptions are somehow different than the semantics of >> the machines they describe. >> > > You phrased that incorrectly. > > I have conclusively proven beyond all possible > doubt that DD simulated by HHH has different > behavior than DD simulated by HHH1. > > On 9/19/2025 1:38 PM, joes wrote: > > DD calling HHH and not HHH1, relative to itself? > > DD is the diagonal program of HHH, not HHH1. > > and so what? >> i will never accept that, unfortunately... >> >>> It has taken me thousands of hours of perfecting >>> those few words. >>> >>>> i moved to thunderbird and have started browsing comp.theory in >>>> unthreaded view cause thunderbirds threads go too deep (newsgrouper >>>> does threads a little better by not indenting chains of replies) >>>> >>>> i do see the name change tho kinda stopped worrying about "what >>>> thread" it is here. >>>> >>> >>> When you always see the new name then it is >>> easier to stay one topic or change it to a >>> new topic. >>> >> >> > > -- a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve basic programmatic considerations like halting analysis. please excuse my pseudo-pyscript, ~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 23:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <10at8fj$2prfb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #129850 |
On 9/22/2025 11:34 PM, dart200 wrote: > On 9/22/25 9:29 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 9/22/2025 11:12 PM, dart200 wrote: >>> On 9/22/25 3:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 9/22/2025 4:53 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>> On 9/22/25 2:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 9/22/2025 4:19 PM, dart200 wrote: >>>>>>> On 9/22/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> *The diagonal case has never actually existed* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> context-sensitive deciders can handle all the diagonal arguments >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Yet may not be Turing computable. >>>>> >>>>> fair point and that's a complex question. turing machines don't >>>>> have the machinery to directly compute it because TMs lacks >>>>> reflectivity. >>>>> >>>>> but we can update TMs with reflective to produce reflective TMs: RTMs >>>>> >>>>> furthermore, TMs can simulate RTMs just fine cause nothing about >>>>> the reflected information is outside TM recognizability, it's just >>>>> that TMs lack the specific machinery themselves to access >>>>> information reflected about themselves. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The conventional halting problem counter >>>> example would not take this extra information >>>> as an argument. >>>> >>>> If a function needs something that it cannot >>>> take as an argument that it cannot derive on >>>> the basis of the argument that it does take >>>> then its seems that Turing machines cannot >>>> do this. >>>> >>>> Historically this means that computer >>>> scientists will write you off as a crank. >>>> >>>>>> Alternatively if they can compute something >>>>>> that Turing machines cannot compute they may >>>>>> refute the Church-Turing thesis. >>>>> >>>>> i may be questioning the church-turing thesis to a degree. >>>>> >>>>> but it's complicated, i do believe RTMs can be fully simulated by >>>>> TMs, it's just that the results cannot apply to TMs themsevles. >>>>>> I changed the name of this post to account for that. >>>>>> [Turing computable functions] >>>>>> You can't see that in threaded view of NewsGrouper. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If you can go back to your other thread and explain >>>> the gist of your idea I might be able to get it. >>>> A fire hose degree of details is too overwhelming. >>> >>> i don't know what others don't know, would you be able to comment on >>> where exactly you get lost? even if it's like the first sentence... >>> >> >> I need the whole essence of your system >> summed up in one sentence. > > context-sensitive deciders respond to context as much as they respond to > input, meaning when run within a basic diagonal program they can return > a different answer than when call elsewhere, allowing for: (1) the > ability to avoid the decision paradox produced by the diagonal, (2) > retain the ability to convey the truth of the matter in all other non- > paradoxical contexts. > What do you mean by context? >> >>>> >>>> The gist of my idea is the I have created a termination >>>> analyzer that does correctly determine that the conventional >>>> counter example input to the halting problem proofs does >>>> specify non-halting behavior. >>> >>> you've spend thousands of hours convincing urself that the semantics >>> of machine descriptions are somehow different than the semantics of >>> the machines they describe. >>> >> >> You phrased that incorrectly. >> >> I have conclusively proven beyond all possible >> doubt that DD simulated by HHH has different >> behavior than DD simulated by HHH1. >> >> On 9/19/2025 1:38 PM, joes wrote: >> > DD calling HHH and not HHH1, relative to itself? >> > DD is the diagonal program of HHH, not HHH1. >> > > > and so what? That is one of the key element of my system that must be understood before there is a basis to understand others. -- 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 | dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-22 21:53 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <10at94q$2puki$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #129853 |
On 9/22/25 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/22/2025 11:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
>> On 9/22/25 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/22/2025 11:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>> On 9/22/25 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/22/2025 4:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/22/25 2:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/22/2025 4:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/22/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> *The diagonal case has never actually existed*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> context-sensitive deciders can handle all the diagonal arguments
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet may not be Turing computable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> fair point and that's a complex question. turing machines don't
>>>>>> have the machinery to directly compute it because TMs lacks
>>>>>> reflectivity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but we can update TMs with reflective to produce reflective TMs: RTMs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> furthermore, TMs can simulate RTMs just fine cause nothing about
>>>>>> the reflected information is outside TM recognizability, it's just
>>>>>> that TMs lack the specific machinery themselves to access
>>>>>> information reflected about themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The conventional halting problem counter
>>>>> example would not take this extra information
>>>>> as an argument.
>>>>>
>>>>> If a function needs something that it cannot
>>>>> take as an argument that it cannot derive on
>>>>> the basis of the argument that it does take
>>>>> then its seems that Turing machines cannot
>>>>> do this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Historically this means that computer
>>>>> scientists will write you off as a crank.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alternatively if they can compute something
>>>>>>> that Turing machines cannot compute they may
>>>>>>> refute the Church-Turing thesis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> i may be questioning the church-turing thesis to a degree.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> but it's complicated, i do believe RTMs can be fully simulated by
>>>>>> TMs, it's just that the results cannot apply to TMs themsevles.
>>>>>>> I changed the name of this post to account for that.
>>>>>>> [Turing computable functions]
>>>>>>> You can't see that in threaded view of NewsGrouper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can go back to your other thread and explain
>>>>> the gist of your idea I might be able to get it.
>>>>> A fire hose degree of details is too overwhelming.
>>>>
>>>> i don't know what others don't know, would you be able to comment on
>>>> where exactly you get lost? even if it's like the first sentence...
>>>>
>>>
>>> I need the whole essence of your system
>>> summed up in one sentence.
>>
>> context-sensitive deciders respond to context as much as they respond
>> to input, meaning when run within a basic diagonal program they can
>> return a different answer than when call elsewhere, allowing for: (1)
>> the ability to avoid the decision paradox produced by the diagonal,
>> (2) retain the ability to convey the truth of the matter in all other
>> non- paradoxical contexts.
>>
>
> What do you mean by context?
the full state of the machine at the time of the decider call, this
allows the decider to respond to the call-site specifically.
for example:
halts(m) -> true iff m halts && not paradoxical to return so
loops(m) -> true iff m loops forever && not paradoxical to return so
G0 = () -> {
if ( halts(G0) ) // false, as true would cause input to loop
loop_forever()
if ( loops(G0) ) // false, as true would cause input to halt
halt
if ( halts(G0) ) // true, as input does halt
print "halts!"
if ( loops(G0) ) // false, as input does not loop
print "does not halt!"
halt
}
when G0 is run, it prints "halts!" and then halts.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The gist of my idea is the I have created a termination
>>>>> analyzer that does correctly determine that the conventional
>>>>> counter example input to the halting problem proofs does
>>>>> specify non-halting behavior.
>>>>
>>>> you've spend thousands of hours convincing urself that the semantics
>>>> of machine descriptions are somehow different than the semantics of
>>>> the machines they describe.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You phrased that incorrectly.
>>>
>>> I have conclusively proven beyond all possible
>>> doubt that DD simulated by HHH has different
>>> behavior than DD simulated by HHH1.
>>>
>>> On 9/19/2025 1:38 PM, joes wrote:
>>> > DD calling HHH and not HHH1, relative to itself?
>>> > DD is the diagonal program of HHH, not HHH1.
>>> >
>>
>> and so what?
>
> That is one of the key element of my system
> that must be understood before there is a
> basis to understand others.
i get that HHH(DD) and HHH1(DD) are different, what does this imply
about anything? what meaning/truth do i glean from that?
--
a burnt out swe investigating into why our tooling doesn't involve
basic programmatic considerations like halting analysis.
please excuse my pseudo-pyscript,
~ nick
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-09-23 09:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Turing computable functions |
| Message-ID | <10aua3k$31rs0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #129856 |
On 9/22/2025 11:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
> On 9/22/25 9:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/22/2025 11:34 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>> On 9/22/25 9:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/22/2025 11:12 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>> On 9/22/25 3:04 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/22/2025 4:53 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/22/25 2:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/22/2025 4:19 PM, dart200 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/22/25 2:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> *The diagonal case has never actually existed*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> context-sensitive deciders can handle all the diagonal arguments
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yet may not be Turing computable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> fair point and that's a complex question. turing machines don't
>>>>>>> have the machinery to directly compute it because TMs lacks
>>>>>>> reflectivity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but we can update TMs with reflective to produce reflective TMs:
>>>>>>> RTMs
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> furthermore, TMs can simulate RTMs just fine cause nothing about
>>>>>>> the reflected information is outside TM recognizability, it's
>>>>>>> just that TMs lack the specific machinery themselves to access
>>>>>>> information reflected about themselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The conventional halting problem counter
>>>>>> example would not take this extra information
>>>>>> as an argument.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If a function needs something that it cannot
>>>>>> take as an argument that it cannot derive on
>>>>>> the basis of the argument that it does take
>>>>>> then its seems that Turing machines cannot
>>>>>> do this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Historically this means that computer
>>>>>> scientists will write you off as a crank.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Alternatively if they can compute something
>>>>>>>> that Turing machines cannot compute they may
>>>>>>>> refute the Church-Turing thesis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> i may be questioning the church-turing thesis to a degree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but it's complicated, i do believe RTMs can be fully simulated by
>>>>>>> TMs, it's just that the results cannot apply to TMs themsevles.
>>>>>>>> I changed the name of this post to account for that.
>>>>>>>> [Turing computable functions]
>>>>>>>> You can't see that in threaded view of NewsGrouper.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you can go back to your other thread and explain
>>>>>> the gist of your idea I might be able to get it.
>>>>>> A fire hose degree of details is too overwhelming.
>>>>>
>>>>> i don't know what others don't know, would you be able to comment
>>>>> on where exactly you get lost? even if it's like the first sentence...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I need the whole essence of your system
>>>> summed up in one sentence.
>>>
>>> context-sensitive deciders respond to context as much as they respond
>>> to input, meaning when run within a basic diagonal program they can
>>> return a different answer than when call elsewhere, allowing for: (1)
>>> the ability to avoid the decision paradox produced by the diagonal,
>>> (2) retain the ability to convey the truth of the matter in all other
>>> non- paradoxical contexts.
>>>
>>
>> What do you mean by context?
>
> the full state of the machine at the time of the decider call, this
> allows the decider to respond to the call-site specifically.
>
OK, I need more details.
> for example:
>
> halts(m) -> true iff m halts && not paradoxical to return so
> loops(m) -> true iff m loops forever && not paradoxical to return so
>
How to you check for paradoxical?
HHH(DD) sees that DD correctly simulated by HHH
cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state.
*HHH sees this on the basis that*
(a) DD calls the same function twice in sequence
(b) With the same argument
(c) DD has no conditional branch instructions
between the invocation of DD and its call to HHH(DD).
> G0 = () -> {
I don't understand this syntax and G0 is not defined.
> if ( halts(G0) ) // false, as true would cause input to loop
> loop_forever()
> if ( loops(G0) ) // false, as true would cause input to halt
> halt
>
> if ( halts(G0) ) // true, as input does halt
> print "halts!"
> if ( loops(G0) ) // false, as input does not loop
> print "does not halt!"
>
> halt
> }
>
> when G0 is run, it prints "halts!" and then halts.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The gist of my idea is the I have created a termination
>>>>>> analyzer that does correctly determine that the conventional
>>>>>> counter example input to the halting problem proofs does
>>>>>> specify non-halting behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> you've spend thousands of hours convincing urself that the
>>>>> semantics of machine descriptions are somehow different than the
>>>>> semantics of the machines they describe.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You phrased that incorrectly.
>>>>
>>>> I have conclusively proven beyond all possible
>>>> doubt that DD simulated by HHH has different
>>>> behavior than DD simulated by HHH1.
>>>>
>>>> On 9/19/2025 1:38 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> > DD calling HHH and not HHH1, relative to itself?
>>>> > DD is the diagonal program of HHH, not HHH1.
>>>> >
>>>
>>> and so what?
>>
>> That is one of the key element of my system
>> that must be understood before there is a
>> basis to understand others.
>
> i get that HHH(DD) and HHH1(DD) are different, what does this imply
> about anything? what meaning/truth do i glean from that?
>
*Here is a better way to say the same thing*
Deciders have always been defined to compute the
mapping from their inputs verifying whether or not
this input specifies a semantic or syntactic property.
Every C programmer knows that the caller of a
function is never the input to this same function.
main-->DD is not the actual input to
main-->DD-->HHH(DD)
Thus the behavior of main-->DD() does not
contradict main-->DD-->HHH(DD)==0
--
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]
Page 10 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web