Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #51785 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-06-03 17:17 -0500 |
| Last post | 2022-06-04 00:36 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 165 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-03 17:17 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-03 18:50 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-06-04 00:35 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-03 18:56 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-03 20:20 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-03 22:51 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-06-04 03:01 -0700
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 10:11 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 11:38 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 10:51 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 12:11 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 11:25 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 13:15 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 12:23 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 14:09 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 13:14 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 14:31 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 13:39 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ BRAIN DEAD MORON ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 14:49 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-04 18:17 +0000
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Alan Mackenzie ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 13:37 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Alan Mackenzie ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 14:54 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Alan Mackenzie ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 14:01 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Alan Mackenzie ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 15:57 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Alan Mackenzie ] Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-04 19:02 +0000
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 14:28 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 16:05 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] [OT] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-06-04 17:30 -0600
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-05 13:14 +0300
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 05:34 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-05 11:12 +0000
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 06:21 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 07:58 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 14:47 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-06-05 16:28 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 16:34 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-05 15:44 +0000
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 16:49 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:22 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 17:28 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 11:35 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:50 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 17:56 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 12:01 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 18:19 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 18:27 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 12:58 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 14:13 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 20:14 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 17:46 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 13:05 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 18:22 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 18:26 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 14:17 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 20:17 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 15:30 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 20:33 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 15:47 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 20:56 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 16:09 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 21:23 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 16:32 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-06 16:10 +0300
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-06 17:47 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-06-05 18:44 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 18:48 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 11:29 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:53 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-05 16:34 +0000
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 17:38 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 11:41 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 17:42 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:54 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 17:58 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 13:07 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 18:23 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 14:20 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-05 17:04 +0000
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:17 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 17:37 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:57 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 18:17 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-05 18:07 +0000
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 20:19 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 15:32 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 20:34 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 15:49 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-05 19:42 +0000
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-06-06 16:03 +0300
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 14:24 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 20:18 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 15:38 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 20:44 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 15:54 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-05 18:56 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) [ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 13:07 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) [ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 14:29 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-05 12:14 +0000
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-05 13:38 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-05 16:17 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 10:59 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:29 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 10:57 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:31 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 11:39 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:59 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 12:02 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 14:31 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 13:35 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 14:54 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 13:57 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 14:09 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 15:25 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 14:33 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 15:43 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 11:24 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-06-05 15:46 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2022-06-05 15:16 +0000
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 11:10 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-06-05 21:07 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 15:15 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 21:28 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 15:36 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 16:44 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 16:38 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 15:41 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 16:57 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-06-05 15:59 -0600
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-06-06 00:59 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-06-05 18:24 -0600
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-06-06 01:40 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-06-05 18:44 -0600
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 20:03 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 21:59 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 21:14 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 22:44 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2022-06-06 02:58 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 21:11 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 22:20 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers[ brand new computer science ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 21:37 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers[ brand new computer science ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 22:52 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers[ brand new computer science ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 22:03 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers[ brand new computer science ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 23:26 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers[ Ordinary software engineering ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 22:41 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers[ Ordinary software engineering ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-06 00:17 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers[ Ordinary software engineering ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-06 10:28 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers[ Ordinary software engineering ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-06 21:04 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 22:15 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 21:22 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 22:38 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Mike Terry ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 19:27 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Mike Terry ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 20:56 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ members of c/c++ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-07 20:04 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ members of c/c++ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-07 22:45 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Mike Terry ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-06 17:49 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Mike Terry ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-06 11:59 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 11:07 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-06-05 17:12 +0100
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-05 11:15 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:45 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-05 12:41 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 06:27 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-06-04 10:28 -0500
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-06-04 11:51 -0400
Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc.corp> - 2022-06-04 00:36 +0100
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 12:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <qg5nK.45007$IgSc.28243@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #51879 |
On 6/5/22 12:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:17:48 -0400 > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > >> On 6/5/22 11:34 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 16:28:05 +0100 >>> Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote: >>> >>>> On 05/06/2022 14:47, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 07:58:42 -0400 >>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>>>>> [...] Sort of like how the number Pi has an >>>>>> exact value, but you can never actually express it (because it >>>>>> takes an infinite number of digits). >>>>> PI does not have an exact value; no irrational number has an exact >>>>> value. >>>> >>>> Of course "pi" has an exact value; as do [eg] "sqrt(2)", >>>> "e", and all the other computable real [and complex] numbers. >>>> Whether that value can be expressed in finite terms in some >>>> particular representation is quite another matter. That in turn >>>> depends on the representation; standard decimals is merely one >>>> [common] choice. Note that in symbolic computer systems, those >>>> computable reals are typically written "pi" [or whatever], and the >>>> computer works with that exactly, so that [eg] "sin^2 (pi/3) == >>>> 3/4", not 0.7499...; and also that in decimal-type notations most >>>> rationals equally have no terminating expansion. Numbers such as >>>> "pi" and "sqrt(2)" are not defined as decimal expansions but via >>>> their properties [eg that "sqrt(2)" is the unique positive real >>>> whose square is 2, or equivalently that it is the ratio of the >>>> diagonal of a square to its side, and "pi" is the least positive >>>> real whose sine is zero]. Those properties are exact, and tell >>>> you all you ever need to know about those numbers. >>>> >>>> [I have removed my name from the "Subject:"; I don't know >>>> why anyone saw fit to attach it to this debate, such as it is, on >>>> the HP.] >>> >>> What has decimal (base 10) expansion got to do with anything? An >>> irrational number has a non-terminating sequence in ANY base. I am >>> sorry but you are simply mistaken: irrational numbers do NOT have an >>> exact value; this is obvious to anyone who understands logic and >>> uses a sane definition for infinity. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> How about in base pi? then it is the number 10 > > how about base banana? then it is the number 10. > > PI, like banana, is just a symbol representing an irrational number > that has no exact value. To use it here is circular and therefor > erroneous. > >> >> Base pi is an interesting base for some problems. >> >> What is your definition of "an exact value"? >> >> Maybe the problem is you don't quite understand the meaning of that >> term. > > Of course I understand the fucking term. For the purposes of this > discussion an exact value is a real number (non-integer) that > terminates in a base that is not a multiple of itself. > > /Flibble > Where do you get that definition from? So 1/3 isn't an exact value? The only bases you can express its value in as a finite number are multiples of 3, which is a multiple of 1/3. I suppose even 1/2 becomes non-exact by your definition, as what base would you use that isn't a multiple of it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 18:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220605181750.000000d7@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #51890 |
On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:57:56 -0400 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > On 6/5/22 12:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:17:48 -0400 > > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > > > >> On 6/5/22 11:34 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 16:28:05 +0100 > >>> Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 05/06/2022 14:47, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 07:58:42 -0400 > >>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > >>>>>> [...] Sort of like how the number Pi has an > >>>>>> exact value, but you can never actually express it (because it > >>>>>> takes an infinite number of digits). > >>>>> PI does not have an exact value; no irrational number has an > >>>>> exact value. > >>>> > >>>> Of course "pi" has an exact value; as do [eg] "sqrt(2)", > >>>> "e", and all the other computable real [and complex] numbers. > >>>> Whether that value can be expressed in finite terms in some > >>>> particular representation is quite another matter. That in turn > >>>> depends on the representation; standard decimals is merely one > >>>> [common] choice. Note that in symbolic computer systems, those > >>>> computable reals are typically written "pi" [or whatever], and > >>>> the computer works with that exactly, so that [eg] "sin^2 (pi/3) > >>>> == 3/4", not 0.7499...; and also that in decimal-type notations > >>>> most rationals equally have no terminating expansion. Numbers > >>>> such as "pi" and "sqrt(2)" are not defined as decimal expansions > >>>> but via their properties [eg that "sqrt(2)" is the unique > >>>> positive real whose square is 2, or equivalently that it is the > >>>> ratio of the diagonal of a square to its side, and "pi" is the > >>>> least positive real whose sine is zero]. Those properties are > >>>> exact, and tell you all you ever need to know about those > >>>> numbers. > >>>> > >>>> [I have removed my name from the "Subject:"; I don't > >>>> know why anyone saw fit to attach it to this debate, such as it > >>>> is, on the HP.] > >>> > >>> What has decimal (base 10) expansion got to do with anything? An > >>> irrational number has a non-terminating sequence in ANY base. I > >>> am sorry but you are simply mistaken: irrational numbers do NOT > >>> have an exact value; this is obvious to anyone who understands > >>> logic and uses a sane definition for infinity. > >>> > >>> /Flibble > >>> > >> > >> How about in base pi? then it is the number 10 > > > > how about base banana? then it is the number 10. > > > > PI, like banana, is just a symbol representing an irrational number > > that has no exact value. To use it here is circular and therefor > > erroneous. > > > >> > >> Base pi is an interesting base for some problems. > >> > >> What is your definition of "an exact value"? > >> > >> Maybe the problem is you don't quite understand the meaning of that > >> term. > > > > Of course I understand the fucking term. For the purposes of this > > discussion an exact value is a real number (non-integer) that > > terminates in a base that is not a multiple of itself. > > > > /Flibble > > > > Where do you get that definition from? > > So 1/3 isn't an exact value? 1/3 is 0.1 in base 3 so does have an exact value. Let me rephrase: for the purposes of this discussion an exact value is a real number that either terminates in some base or has a repetend in other (non-irrational) bases. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t7irdi$1qaq$5@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #51898 |
Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:57:56 -0400 > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: [ .... ] >> So 1/3 isn't an exact value? > 1/3 is 0.1 in base 3 so does have an exact value. > Let me rephrase: for the purposes of this discussion an exact value is > a real number that either terminates in some base or has a repetend in > other (non-irrational) bases. So what you seem to be saying is that an exact value is a rational number. That, somehow, irrational numbers are inexact. There is no basis in modern maths for that last assertion. But for that rider - "for the purposes of this discussion" shows that you wish to have a discussion based on falsehood and superstition. > /Flibble -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 20:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220605201936.000078c5@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #51910 |
On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 18:07:46 -0000 (UTC) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: > Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: > > On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:57:56 -0400 > > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > > [ .... ] > > >> So 1/3 isn't an exact value? > > > 1/3 is 0.1 in base 3 so does have an exact value. > > > Let me rephrase: for the purposes of this discussion an exact value > > is a real number that either terminates in some base or has a > > repetend in other (non-irrational) bases. > > So what you seem to be saying is that an exact value is a rational > number. That, somehow, irrational numbers are inexact. There is no > basis in modern maths for that last assertion. But for that rider - > "for the purposes of this discussion" shows that you wish to have a > discussion based on falsehood and superstition. That would be a fair conclusion: irrational numbers are inexact as it is impossible to evaluate them to infinite precision as infinite precision is meaningless. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 15:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Sw7nK.42947$elob.32253@fx43.iad> |
| In reply to | #51925 |
On 6/5/22 3:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 18:07:46 -0000 (UTC) > Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: > >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:57:56 -0400 >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >> >> [ .... ] >> >>>> So 1/3 isn't an exact value? >> >>> 1/3 is 0.1 in base 3 so does have an exact value. >> >>> Let me rephrase: for the purposes of this discussion an exact value >>> is a real number that either terminates in some base or has a >>> repetend in other (non-irrational) bases. >> >> So what you seem to be saying is that an exact value is a rational >> number. That, somehow, irrational numbers are inexact. There is no >> basis in modern maths for that last assertion. But for that rider - >> "for the purposes of this discussion" shows that you wish to have a >> discussion based on falsehood and superstition. > > That would be a fair conclusion: irrational numbers are inexact as it > is impossible to evaluate them to infinite precision as infinite > precision is meaningless. > > /Flibble > So, you AGREE that it shows you wish to have a discusion based on falsehood and superstition?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 20:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220605203439.00007c21@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #51929 |
On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 15:32:01 -0400 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > On 6/5/22 3:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 18:07:46 -0000 (UTC) > > Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: > > > >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: > >>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:57:56 -0400 > >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > >> > >> [ .... ] > >> > >>>> So 1/3 isn't an exact value? > >> > >>> 1/3 is 0.1 in base 3 so does have an exact value. > >> > >>> Let me rephrase: for the purposes of this discussion an exact > >>> value is a real number that either terminates in some base or has > >>> a repetend in other (non-irrational) bases. > >> > >> So what you seem to be saying is that an exact value is a rational > >> number. That, somehow, irrational numbers are inexact. There is > >> no basis in modern maths for that last assertion. But for that > >> rider - "for the purposes of this discussion" shows that you wish > >> to have a discussion based on falsehood and superstition. > > > > That would be a fair conclusion: irrational numbers are inexact as > > it is impossible to evaluate them to infinite precision as infinite > > precision is meaningless. > > > > /Flibble > > > > So, you AGREE that it shows you wish to have a discusion based on > falsehood and superstition? I agree that irrational numbers are inexact. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 15:49 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1N7nK.65116$ntj.18861@fx15.iad> |
| In reply to | #51932 |
On 6/5/22 3:34 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 15:32:01 -0400 > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > >> On 6/5/22 3:19 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 18:07:46 -0000 (UTC) >>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: >>> >>>> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:57:56 -0400 >>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> [ .... ] >>>> >>>>>> So 1/3 isn't an exact value? >>>> >>>>> 1/3 is 0.1 in base 3 so does have an exact value. >>>> >>>>> Let me rephrase: for the purposes of this discussion an exact >>>>> value is a real number that either terminates in some base or has >>>>> a repetend in other (non-irrational) bases. >>>> >>>> So what you seem to be saying is that an exact value is a rational >>>> number. That, somehow, irrational numbers are inexact. There is >>>> no basis in modern maths for that last assertion. But for that >>>> rider - "for the purposes of this discussion" shows that you wish >>>> to have a discussion based on falsehood and superstition. >>> >>> That would be a fair conclusion: irrational numbers are inexact as >>> it is impossible to evaluate them to infinite precision as infinite >>> precision is meaningless. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> So, you AGREE that it shows you wish to have a discusion based on >> falsehood and superstition? > > I agree that irrational numbers are inexact. > > /Flibble > Which has been proved FALSE. What is inexact about them. You are just stuck in a circular set of incorrect definitions. Probably because you can't understand the abstractions needed to move from the rationals to the reals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 19:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <t7j0vt$1t2f$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #51925 |
Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 18:07:46 -0000 (UTC) > Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >> > On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:57:56 -0400 >> > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >> [ .... ] >> >> So 1/3 isn't an exact value? >> > 1/3 is 0.1 in base 3 so does have an exact value. >> > Let me rephrase: for the purposes of this discussion an exact value >> > is a real number that either terminates in some base or has a >> > repetend in other (non-irrational) bases. >> So what you seem to be saying is that an exact value is a rational >> number. That, somehow, irrational numbers are inexact. There is no >> basis in modern maths for that last assertion. But for that rider - >> "for the purposes of this discussion" shows that you wish to have a >> discussion based on falsehood and superstition. > That would be a fair conclusion: irrational numbers are inexact .... Wrong. Numbers just are. There is no such thing as an "inexact number". > .... as it is impossible to evaluate them .... It is indeed. One evaluates expressions, not numbers. Think about it, how can you possibly evaluate 2? > .... to infinite precision as infinite precision is meaningless. Numbers don't have precision, any more than they have the colour blue. Approximations have precision. You're confusing numbers with approximations to them. > /Flibble -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-06 16:03 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t7ktua$273$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #51925 |
On 2022-06-05 19:19:36 +0000, Mr Flibble said: > On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 18:07:46 -0000 (UTC) > Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> wrote: > >> Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> wrote: >>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:57:56 -0400 >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >> >> [ .... ] >> >>>> So 1/3 isn't an exact value? >> >>> 1/3 is 0.1 in base 3 so does have an exact value. >> >>> Let me rephrase: for the purposes of this discussion an exact value >>> is a real number that either terminates in some base or has a >>> repetend in other (non-irrational) bases. >> >> So what you seem to be saying is that an exact value is a rational >> number. That, somehow, irrational numbers are inexact. There is no >> basis in modern maths for that last assertion. But for that rider - >> "for the purposes of this discussion" shows that you wish to have a >> discussion based on falsehood and superstition. > > That would be a fair conclusion: irrational numbers are inexact as it > is impossible to evaluate them to infinite precision as infinite > precision is meaningless. A real expression is well defined and exact if for every rational number it is possible to determine whether it is smaller than the value of the real expression. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 14:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mx6nK.12638$gjlb.12101@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #51898 |
On 6/5/22 1:17 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:57:56 -0400 > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > >> On 6/5/22 12:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:17:48 -0400 >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/5/22 11:34 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 16:28:05 +0100 >>>>> Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 05/06/2022 14:47, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 07:58:42 -0400 >>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>>>>>>> [...] Sort of like how the number Pi has an >>>>>>>> exact value, but you can never actually express it (because it >>>>>>>> takes an infinite number of digits). >>>>>>> PI does not have an exact value; no irrational number has an >>>>>>> exact value. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course "pi" has an exact value; as do [eg] "sqrt(2)", >>>>>> "e", and all the other computable real [and complex] numbers. >>>>>> Whether that value can be expressed in finite terms in some >>>>>> particular representation is quite another matter. That in turn >>>>>> depends on the representation; standard decimals is merely one >>>>>> [common] choice. Note that in symbolic computer systems, those >>>>>> computable reals are typically written "pi" [or whatever], and >>>>>> the computer works with that exactly, so that [eg] "sin^2 (pi/3) >>>>>> == 3/4", not 0.7499...; and also that in decimal-type notations >>>>>> most rationals equally have no terminating expansion. Numbers >>>>>> such as "pi" and "sqrt(2)" are not defined as decimal expansions >>>>>> but via their properties [eg that "sqrt(2)" is the unique >>>>>> positive real whose square is 2, or equivalently that it is the >>>>>> ratio of the diagonal of a square to its side, and "pi" is the >>>>>> least positive real whose sine is zero]. Those properties are >>>>>> exact, and tell you all you ever need to know about those >>>>>> numbers. >>>>>> >>>>>> [I have removed my name from the "Subject:"; I don't >>>>>> know why anyone saw fit to attach it to this debate, such as it >>>>>> is, on the HP.] >>>>> >>>>> What has decimal (base 10) expansion got to do with anything? An >>>>> irrational number has a non-terminating sequence in ANY base. I >>>>> am sorry but you are simply mistaken: irrational numbers do NOT >>>>> have an exact value; this is obvious to anyone who understands >>>>> logic and uses a sane definition for infinity. >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>> >>>> How about in base pi? then it is the number 10 >>> >>> how about base banana? then it is the number 10. >>> >>> PI, like banana, is just a symbol representing an irrational number >>> that has no exact value. To use it here is circular and therefor >>> erroneous. >>> >>>> >>>> Base pi is an interesting base for some problems. >>>> >>>> What is your definition of "an exact value"? >>>> >>>> Maybe the problem is you don't quite understand the meaning of that >>>> term. >>> >>> Of course I understand the fucking term. For the purposes of this >>> discussion an exact value is a real number (non-integer) that >>> terminates in a base that is not a multiple of itself. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> Where do you get that definition from? >> >> So 1/3 isn't an exact value? > > 1/3 is 0.1 in base 3 so does have an exact value. And base 3 is a multiple of 1/3, which you said wasn't allowed. > > Let me rephrase: for the purposes of this discussion an exact value is > a real number that either terminates in some base or has a repetend in > other (non-irrational) bases. > > /Flibble > No, that is NOT a correct definition. That isn't a bad definition of a RATIONAL number, as any number that can be written as a finite string, or a string with a repetend can be also expressed as a ratio of two numbers. There is nothing in the actual meaning of "exact value" that needs the value to be expressible as a finite string of digits.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 20:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220605201816.00003291@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #51914 |
On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 14:24:17 -0400 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > On 6/5/22 1:17 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:57:56 -0400 > > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > > > >> On 6/5/22 12:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:17:48 -0400 > >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 6/5/22 11:34 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 16:28:05 +0100 > >>>>> Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 05/06/2022 14:47, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 07:58:42 -0400 > >>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>> [...] Sort of like how the number Pi has an > >>>>>>>> exact value, but you can never actually express it (because > >>>>>>>> it takes an infinite number of digits). > >>>>>>> PI does not have an exact value; no irrational number has an > >>>>>>> exact value. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Of course "pi" has an exact value; as do [eg] > >>>>>> "sqrt(2)", "e", and all the other computable real [and > >>>>>> complex] numbers. Whether that value can be expressed in > >>>>>> finite terms in some particular representation is quite > >>>>>> another matter. That in turn depends on the representation; > >>>>>> standard decimals is merely one [common] choice. Note that in > >>>>>> symbolic computer systems, those computable reals are > >>>>>> typically written "pi" [or whatever], and the computer works > >>>>>> with that exactly, so that [eg] "sin^2 (pi/3) == 3/4", not > >>>>>> 0.7499...; and also that in decimal-type notations most > >>>>>> rationals equally have no terminating expansion. Numbers such > >>>>>> as "pi" and "sqrt(2)" are not defined as decimal expansions > >>>>>> but via their properties [eg that "sqrt(2)" is the unique > >>>>>> positive real whose square is 2, or equivalently that it is > >>>>>> the ratio of the diagonal of a square to its side, and "pi" is > >>>>>> the least positive real whose sine is zero]. Those properties > >>>>>> are exact, and tell you all you ever need to know about those > >>>>>> numbers. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> [I have removed my name from the "Subject:"; I don't > >>>>>> know why anyone saw fit to attach it to this debate, such as it > >>>>>> is, on the HP.] > >>>>> > >>>>> What has decimal (base 10) expansion got to do with anything? An > >>>>> irrational number has a non-terminating sequence in ANY base. I > >>>>> am sorry but you are simply mistaken: irrational numbers do NOT > >>>>> have an exact value; this is obvious to anyone who understands > >>>>> logic and uses a sane definition for infinity. > >>>>> > >>>>> /Flibble > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> How about in base pi? then it is the number 10 > >>> > >>> how about base banana? then it is the number 10. > >>> > >>> PI, like banana, is just a symbol representing an irrational > >>> number that has no exact value. To use it here is circular and > >>> therefor erroneous. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Base pi is an interesting base for some problems. > >>>> > >>>> What is your definition of "an exact value"? > >>>> > >>>> Maybe the problem is you don't quite understand the meaning of > >>>> that term. > >>> > >>> Of course I understand the fucking term. For the purposes of this > >>> discussion an exact value is a real number (non-integer) that > >>> terminates in a base that is not a multiple of itself. > >>> > >>> /Flibble > >>> > >> > >> Where do you get that definition from? > >> > >> So 1/3 isn't an exact value? > > > > 1/3 is 0.1 in base 3 so does have an exact value. > > And base 3 is a multiple of 1/3, which you said wasn't allowed. > > > > > Let me rephrase: for the purposes of this discussion an exact value > > is a real number that either terminates in some base or has a > > repetend in other (non-irrational) bases. > > > > /Flibble > > > > No, that is NOT a correct definition. That isn't a bad definition of > a RATIONAL number, as any number that can be written as a finite > string, or a string with a repetend can be also expressed as a ratio > of two numbers. > > There is nothing in the actual meaning of "exact value" that needs > the value to be expressible as a finite string of digits. You are wrong, and fractally so which is ironic given the topic under discussion. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 15:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fD7nK.8370$CBlb.5065@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #51924 |
On 6/5/22 3:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 14:24:17 -0400 > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > >> On 6/5/22 1:17 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:57:56 -0400 >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/5/22 12:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:17:48 -0400 >>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/5/22 11:34 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 16:28:05 +0100 >>>>>>> Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 05/06/2022 14:47, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 07:58:42 -0400 >>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> [...] Sort of like how the number Pi has an >>>>>>>>>> exact value, but you can never actually express it (because >>>>>>>>>> it takes an infinite number of digits). >>>>>>>>> PI does not have an exact value; no irrational number has an >>>>>>>>> exact value. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course "pi" has an exact value; as do [eg] >>>>>>>> "sqrt(2)", "e", and all the other computable real [and >>>>>>>> complex] numbers. Whether that value can be expressed in >>>>>>>> finite terms in some particular representation is quite >>>>>>>> another matter. That in turn depends on the representation; >>>>>>>> standard decimals is merely one [common] choice. Note that in >>>>>>>> symbolic computer systems, those computable reals are >>>>>>>> typically written "pi" [or whatever], and the computer works >>>>>>>> with that exactly, so that [eg] "sin^2 (pi/3) == 3/4", not >>>>>>>> 0.7499...; and also that in decimal-type notations most >>>>>>>> rationals equally have no terminating expansion. Numbers such >>>>>>>> as "pi" and "sqrt(2)" are not defined as decimal expansions >>>>>>>> but via their properties [eg that "sqrt(2)" is the unique >>>>>>>> positive real whose square is 2, or equivalently that it is >>>>>>>> the ratio of the diagonal of a square to its side, and "pi" is >>>>>>>> the least positive real whose sine is zero]. Those properties >>>>>>>> are exact, and tell you all you ever need to know about those >>>>>>>> numbers. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [I have removed my name from the "Subject:"; I don't >>>>>>>> know why anyone saw fit to attach it to this debate, such as it >>>>>>>> is, on the HP.] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What has decimal (base 10) expansion got to do with anything? An >>>>>>> irrational number has a non-terminating sequence in ANY base. I >>>>>>> am sorry but you are simply mistaken: irrational numbers do NOT >>>>>>> have an exact value; this is obvious to anyone who understands >>>>>>> logic and uses a sane definition for infinity. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> How about in base pi? then it is the number 10 >>>>> >>>>> how about base banana? then it is the number 10. >>>>> >>>>> PI, like banana, is just a symbol representing an irrational >>>>> number that has no exact value. To use it here is circular and >>>>> therefor erroneous. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Base pi is an interesting base for some problems. >>>>>> >>>>>> What is your definition of "an exact value"? >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe the problem is you don't quite understand the meaning of >>>>>> that term. >>>>> >>>>> Of course I understand the fucking term. For the purposes of this >>>>> discussion an exact value is a real number (non-integer) that >>>>> terminates in a base that is not a multiple of itself. >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>> >>>> Where do you get that definition from? >>>> >>>> So 1/3 isn't an exact value? >>> >>> 1/3 is 0.1 in base 3 so does have an exact value. >> >> And base 3 is a multiple of 1/3, which you said wasn't allowed. >> >>> >>> Let me rephrase: for the purposes of this discussion an exact value >>> is a real number that either terminates in some base or has a >>> repetend in other (non-irrational) bases. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> No, that is NOT a correct definition. That isn't a bad definition of >> a RATIONAL number, as any number that can be written as a finite >> string, or a string with a repetend can be also expressed as a ratio >> of two numbers. >> >> There is nothing in the actual meaning of "exact value" that needs >> the value to be expressible as a finite string of digits. > > You are wrong, and fractally so which is ironic given the topic under > discussion. > > /Flibble > By what reference? Exact means without approximation Value, in this context, means the numerical amount. The number pi, and sqrt(2) met that definition. There is NO approximation in the definition of either value, pi is exact the ratio of the circumferance and diameter of a circle on a plane (the circumferance / diameter). This is an exact number. They represent a numerical amount. Thus, they meet the definition of an exact value. You seem to be stuck in logic milleniums old where things that couldn't be converted into counting numbers were beyond understanding.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 20:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220605204444.0000328c@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #51934 |
On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 15:38:50 -0400 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > On 6/5/22 3:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > > On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 14:24:17 -0400 > > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > > > >> On 6/5/22 1:17 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:57:56 -0400 > >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 6/5/22 12:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:17:48 -0400 > >>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 6/5/22 11:34 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>>>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 16:28:05 +0100 > >>>>>>> Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On 05/06/2022 14:47, Mr Flibble wrote: > >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 07:58:42 -0400 > >>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> [...] Sort of like how the number Pi has an > >>>>>>>>>> exact value, but you can never actually express it (because > >>>>>>>>>> it takes an infinite number of digits). > >>>>>>>>> PI does not have an exact value; no irrational number has an > >>>>>>>>> exact value. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Of course "pi" has an exact value; as do [eg] > >>>>>>>> "sqrt(2)", "e", and all the other computable real [and > >>>>>>>> complex] numbers. Whether that value can be expressed in > >>>>>>>> finite terms in some particular representation is quite > >>>>>>>> another matter. That in turn depends on the representation; > >>>>>>>> standard decimals is merely one [common] choice. Note that > >>>>>>>> in symbolic computer systems, those computable reals are > >>>>>>>> typically written "pi" [or whatever], and the computer works > >>>>>>>> with that exactly, so that [eg] "sin^2 (pi/3) == 3/4", not > >>>>>>>> 0.7499...; and also that in decimal-type notations most > >>>>>>>> rationals equally have no terminating expansion. Numbers > >>>>>>>> such as "pi" and "sqrt(2)" are not defined as decimal > >>>>>>>> expansions but via their properties [eg that "sqrt(2)" is > >>>>>>>> the unique positive real whose square is 2, or equivalently > >>>>>>>> that it is the ratio of the diagonal of a square to its > >>>>>>>> side, and "pi" is the least positive real whose sine is > >>>>>>>> zero]. Those properties are exact, and tell you all you > >>>>>>>> ever need to know about those numbers. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [I have removed my name from the "Subject:"; I don't > >>>>>>>> know why anyone saw fit to attach it to this debate, such as > >>>>>>>> it is, on the HP.] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> What has decimal (base 10) expansion got to do with anything? > >>>>>>> An irrational number has a non-terminating sequence in ANY > >>>>>>> base. I am sorry but you are simply mistaken: irrational > >>>>>>> numbers do NOT have an exact value; this is obvious to anyone > >>>>>>> who understands logic and uses a sane definition for infinity. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> /Flibble > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> How about in base pi? then it is the number 10 > >>>>> > >>>>> how about base banana? then it is the number 10. > >>>>> > >>>>> PI, like banana, is just a symbol representing an irrational > >>>>> number that has no exact value. To use it here is circular and > >>>>> therefor erroneous. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Base pi is an interesting base for some problems. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What is your definition of "an exact value"? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Maybe the problem is you don't quite understand the meaning of > >>>>>> that term. > >>>>> > >>>>> Of course I understand the fucking term. For the purposes of > >>>>> this discussion an exact value is a real number (non-integer) > >>>>> that terminates in a base that is not a multiple of itself. > >>>>> > >>>>> /Flibble > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Where do you get that definition from? > >>>> > >>>> So 1/3 isn't an exact value? > >>> > >>> 1/3 is 0.1 in base 3 so does have an exact value. > >> > >> And base 3 is a multiple of 1/3, which you said wasn't allowed. > >> > >>> > >>> Let me rephrase: for the purposes of this discussion an exact > >>> value is a real number that either terminates in some base or has > >>> a repetend in other (non-irrational) bases. > >>> > >>> /Flibble > >>> > >> > >> No, that is NOT a correct definition. That isn't a bad definition > >> of a RATIONAL number, as any number that can be written as a finite > >> string, or a string with a repetend can be also expressed as a > >> ratio of two numbers. > >> > >> There is nothing in the actual meaning of "exact value" that needs > >> the value to be expressible as a finite string of digits. > > > > You are wrong, and fractally so which is ironic given the topic > > under discussion. > > > > /Flibble > > > > By what reference? > > Exact means without approximation > > Value, in this context, means the numerical amount. > > The number pi, and sqrt(2) met that definition. > > There is NO approximation in the definition of either value, pi is > exact the ratio of the circumferance and diameter of a circle on a > plane (the circumferance / diameter). This is an exact number. > > They represent a numerical amount. > > Thus, they meet the definition of an exact value. > > You seem to be stuck in logic milleniums old where things that > couldn't be converted into counting numbers were beyond understanding. You have yet to prove to me that there is an exact ratio between the circumference and diameter of a circle: all you have done is a lot of hand waving. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 15:54 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <HR7nK.7979$_T.2089@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #51938 |
On 6/5/22 3:44 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 15:38:50 -0400 > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: > >> On 6/5/22 3:18 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 14:24:17 -0400 >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>> >>>> On 6/5/22 1:17 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:57:56 -0400 >>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/5/22 12:37 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 12:17:48 -0400 >>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/5/22 11:34 AM, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 16:28:05 +0100 >>>>>>>>> Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 05/06/2022 14:47, Mr Flibble wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 5 Jun 2022 07:58:42 -0400 >>>>>>>>>>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> [...] Sort of like how the number Pi has an >>>>>>>>>>>> exact value, but you can never actually express it (because >>>>>>>>>>>> it takes an infinite number of digits). >>>>>>>>>>> PI does not have an exact value; no irrational number has an >>>>>>>>>>> exact value. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Of course "pi" has an exact value; as do [eg] >>>>>>>>>> "sqrt(2)", "e", and all the other computable real [and >>>>>>>>>> complex] numbers. Whether that value can be expressed in >>>>>>>>>> finite terms in some particular representation is quite >>>>>>>>>> another matter. That in turn depends on the representation; >>>>>>>>>> standard decimals is merely one [common] choice. Note that >>>>>>>>>> in symbolic computer systems, those computable reals are >>>>>>>>>> typically written "pi" [or whatever], and the computer works >>>>>>>>>> with that exactly, so that [eg] "sin^2 (pi/3) == 3/4", not >>>>>>>>>> 0.7499...; and also that in decimal-type notations most >>>>>>>>>> rationals equally have no terminating expansion. Numbers >>>>>>>>>> such as "pi" and "sqrt(2)" are not defined as decimal >>>>>>>>>> expansions but via their properties [eg that "sqrt(2)" is >>>>>>>>>> the unique positive real whose square is 2, or equivalently >>>>>>>>>> that it is the ratio of the diagonal of a square to its >>>>>>>>>> side, and "pi" is the least positive real whose sine is >>>>>>>>>> zero]. Those properties are exact, and tell you all you >>>>>>>>>> ever need to know about those numbers. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [I have removed my name from the "Subject:"; I don't >>>>>>>>>> know why anyone saw fit to attach it to this debate, such as >>>>>>>>>> it is, on the HP.] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What has decimal (base 10) expansion got to do with anything? >>>>>>>>> An irrational number has a non-terminating sequence in ANY >>>>>>>>> base. I am sorry but you are simply mistaken: irrational >>>>>>>>> numbers do NOT have an exact value; this is obvious to anyone >>>>>>>>> who understands logic and uses a sane definition for infinity. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How about in base pi? then it is the number 10 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> how about base banana? then it is the number 10. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PI, like banana, is just a symbol representing an irrational >>>>>>> number that has no exact value. To use it here is circular and >>>>>>> therefor erroneous. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Base pi is an interesting base for some problems. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What is your definition of "an exact value"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe the problem is you don't quite understand the meaning of >>>>>>>> that term. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course I understand the fucking term. For the purposes of >>>>>>> this discussion an exact value is a real number (non-integer) >>>>>>> that terminates in a base that is not a multiple of itself. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /Flibble >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Where do you get that definition from? >>>>>> >>>>>> So 1/3 isn't an exact value? >>>>> >>>>> 1/3 is 0.1 in base 3 so does have an exact value. >>>> >>>> And base 3 is a multiple of 1/3, which you said wasn't allowed. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let me rephrase: for the purposes of this discussion an exact >>>>> value is a real number that either terminates in some base or has >>>>> a repetend in other (non-irrational) bases. >>>>> >>>>> /Flibble >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, that is NOT a correct definition. That isn't a bad definition >>>> of a RATIONAL number, as any number that can be written as a finite >>>> string, or a string with a repetend can be also expressed as a >>>> ratio of two numbers. >>>> >>>> There is nothing in the actual meaning of "exact value" that needs >>>> the value to be expressible as a finite string of digits. >>> >>> You are wrong, and fractally so which is ironic given the topic >>> under discussion. >>> >>> /Flibble >>> >> >> By what reference? >> >> Exact means without approximation >> >> Value, in this context, means the numerical amount. >> >> The number pi, and sqrt(2) met that definition. >> >> There is NO approximation in the definition of either value, pi is >> exact the ratio of the circumferance and diameter of a circle on a >> plane (the circumferance / diameter). This is an exact number. >> >> They represent a numerical amount. >> >> Thus, they meet the definition of an exact value. >> >> You seem to be stuck in logic milleniums old where things that >> couldn't be converted into counting numbers were beyond understanding. > > You have yet to prove to me that there is an exact ratio between the > circumference and diameter of a circle: all you have done is a lot of > hand waving. > > /Flibble > Is your problem that you don't beleive that all circles as similar (and thus to the same ratio), or that this result is a number? Both of these are ancient proofs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 18:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <877d5vm1t9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #51860 |
Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> writes: > [I have removed my name from the "Subject:"; I don't know why > anyone saw fit to attach it to this debate, such as it is, on the HP.] It was PO. It's a ploy to goad people into talking to him. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 13:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) [ Andy Walker ] |
| Message-ID | <T7udnWVOrZFbbQH_nZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #51907 |
On 6/5/2022 12:56 PM, Ben wrote:
> Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> writes:
>
>> [I have removed my name from the "Subject:"; I don't know why
>> anyone saw fit to attach it to this debate, such as it is, on the HP.]
>
> It was PO. It's a ploy to goad people into talking to him.
>
I was my specific reply to Andy Walker's incorrect reasoning.
It was claimed that others have considered simulating halt deciders
before. I proved otherwise.
The fact that no rebuttal has been made is construed as acknowledgement
that I am correct.
No one ever bothered to think the otherwise "impossible" input being
analyzed by a simulating halt decider ALL THE WAY THROUGH EVER BEFORE!
On 6/2/2022 1:12 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
> http://www.cuboid.me.uk/anw/G12FCO/lect18.html
At any given moment as the emulation proceeds, we are in one of not two
but three states: the program has halted, or it is looping, or it is
still running and has not yet entered a loop. It's the third case that
kills us -- we just have to keep going, and wait for one of the other
two things to happen. The trouble is that it may be that neither of them
ever happens -- which is why `it must be in a loop' was in quotes above.
Andy Walker did provide a fundamentally flawed and totally shallow
analysis of an simulating halt decider.
At any given moment as the emulation proceeds,
we are in one of not two but three states:
(a) The program has halted,
(b) It is still running.
(c) IT HAS MATCHED AN INFINITE BEHAVIOR PATTERN
void P(u32 x)
{
if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}
The above matches (c) for infinitely nested simulation.
H(P,P)==0 does correctly map the otherwise impossible input to a reject
state.
--
Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott
"Talent hits a target no one else can hit;
Genius hits a target no one else can see."
Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 14:29 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers) [ Andy Walker ] |
| Message-ID | <HC6nK.88189$J0r9.50901@fx11.iad> |
| In reply to | #51909 |
On 6/5/22 2:07 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/5/2022 12:56 PM, Ben wrote:
>> Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>> [I have removed my name from the "Subject:"; I don't know why
>>> anyone saw fit to attach it to this debate, such as it is, on the HP.]
>>
>> It was PO. It's a ploy to goad people into talking to him.
>>
>
> I was my specific reply to Andy Walker's incorrect reasoning.
> It was claimed that others have considered simulating halt deciders
> before. I proved otherwise.
>
> The fact that no rebuttal has been made is construed as acknowledgement
> that I am correct.
The fact that rebuttals HAVE been made, proves you are a LIAR.
>
>
> No one ever bothered to think the otherwise "impossible" input being
> analyzed by a simulating halt decider ALL THE WAY THROUGH EVER BEFORE!
Except that you don't think your thought all the way through shows you
are an idiot.
>
> On 6/2/2022 1:12 PM, Andy Walker wrote:
> > http://www.cuboid.me.uk/anw/G12FCO/lect18.html
> At any given moment as the emulation proceeds, we are in one of not two
> but three states: the program has halted, or it is looping, or it is
> still running and has not yet entered a loop. It's the third case that
> kills us -- we just have to keep going, and wait for one of the other
> two things to happen. The trouble is that it may be that neither of them
> ever happens -- which is why `it must be in a loop' was in quotes above.
>
> Andy Walker did provide a fundamentally flawed and totally shallow
> analysis of an simulating halt decider.
>
> At any given moment as the emulation proceeds,
> we are in one of not two but three states:
> (a) The program has halted,
> (b) It is still running.
> (c) IT HAS MATCHED AN INFINITE BEHAVIOR PATTERN
>
> void P(u32 x)
> {
> if (H(x, x))
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return;
> }
>
> The above matches (c) for infinitely nested simulation.
Except it doesn't, the pattern at that point in NOT infinitely nested if
H(P,P) returns 0.
>
> H(P,P)==0 does correctly map the otherwise impossible input to a reject
> state.
>
>
Nope.
If H(P,P) == 0, then P(P) Halts, so it was in (b) when H aborted its
simulation and eventually makes it to (a).
H only THINKS it was (c) because H is using unsound and invalid logic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 12:14 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] |
| Message-ID | <t7i6o1$1bk1$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #51851 |
olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: > On 6/5/2022 6:12 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On 6/5/2022 5:14 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2022-06-04 19:28:19 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> A Turing machine is said to halt whenever it reaches a >>>>> configuration for which δ is not defined; this is possible because >>>>> δ is a partial function. In fact, we will assume that no >>>>> transitions are defined for any final state so the Turing machine >>>>> will halt whenever it enters a final state. (Linz:1990:234) >>>>> Linz, Peter 1990. An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata. >>>>> Lexington/Toronto: D. C. Heath and Company. >>>>> When translated into ordinary software engineering terms this means >>>>> terminated normally. In a C function this means reaching the "ret" >>>>> instruction. >>>> The best equivalent to "not defined" is not "ret". Instead, "not >>>> defined" should include at least: >>>> - HLT or any other instruction that means 'halt' >>>> - any undefined op code >>>> - any return or pop instruction if the stack is empty >>>> - an instruction fetch from a location that is not specifiec by the >>>> program >>>> That way the analogy to Linz' definition is much better. >>>> Mikko >>> Reaching a final state is merely the Turing machine way of saying >>> terminated normally. "ret" is the C way of saying the same thing. >> Sophistry. What would be the turing machine equivalent of an >> "abnormal termination" in C? > An aborted simulation. There's no such thing on a turing machine. It either runs and halts, or it runs forever. Your aborted simulation is just one final state of a turing machine, which has thus halted. [ .... ] >> It can only be the TM having halted. So a TM final >> state is equivalent to a C program's termination, whether by a ret >> instruction or a halt instruction or anything else. > -- > Copyright 2022 Pete 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 | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 13:38 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] |
| Message-ID | <87o7z7mgik.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #51853 |
Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
> olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On 6/5/2022 6:12 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> ... What would be the turing machine equivalent of an
>>> "abnormal termination" in C?
>
>> An aborted simulation.
>
> There's no such thing on a turing machine. It either runs and halts, or
> it runs forever.
>
> Your aborted simulation is just one final state of a turing machine,
> which has thus halted.
A year ago I tried to get PO to accept a few basic facts about the
topic. One of these was
(B) Every computation that halts, for whatever reason, is a halting
computation.
After much ducking a diving, PO replied "OK".
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-06-05 16:17 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Refuting the HP proofs (adapted for software engineers)[ Andy Walker ] |
| Message-ID | <87ilpfm95n.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #51854 |
Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > >> olcott <NoOne@nowhere.com> wrote: >>> On 6/5/2022 6:12 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > >>>> ... What would be the turing machine equivalent of an >>>> "abnormal termination" in C? >> >>> An aborted simulation. >> >> There's no such thing on a turing machine. It either runs and halts, or >> it runs forever. >> >> Your aborted simulation is just one final state of a turing machine, >> which has thus halted. > > A year ago I tried to get PO to accept a few basic facts about the > topic. One of these was > > (B) Every computation that halts, for whatever reason, is a halting > computation. > > After much ducking [and] diving, PO replied "OK". I should explain that the purpose of this question was because, at the time, PO was claiming that the reason H_Hat(H_Hat) halts was "special": the consequence of a simulation being stopped. The fact that H_Hat(H_Hat) halts for some special reason used to be feature of PO's posts. The phrasing "H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 is correct because H_Hat(H_Hat) only halts because..." was the mantra if the day. Obviously some new, less clear, wording was called for. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 9 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web