Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #134369 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-10-30 09:49 -0500 |
| Last post | 2025-11-01 12:42 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 293 — 15 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 09:49 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-30 20:11 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 15:25 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-30 20:42 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 16:05 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-30 21:15 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 16:49 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 20:13 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 21:14 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 19:15 -0700
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 22:33 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 21:45 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 22:49 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 21:54 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 22:56 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 21:59 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 23:00 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 22:03 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 23:04 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 22:15 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 23:19 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 22:25 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 23:28 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 22:49 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 00:00 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 23:06 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 07:22 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 06:55 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 08:08 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 07:30 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 08:33 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 09:02 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 10:15 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 09:24 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 10:28 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 12:36 -0700
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 12:35 -0700
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-31 04:55 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 06:57 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-31 17:17 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-31 17:20 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Mike never did get this "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 12:32 -0700
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-31 00:22 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 21:07 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 22:10 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 21:17 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 19:18 -0700
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 22:35 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 21:48 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 22:50 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 21:56 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 22:58 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 22:01 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 23:03 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 22:05 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 23:06 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 22:16 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 23:20 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 22:27 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 23:30 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 22:59 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-31 03:35 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-31 03:29 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 22:47 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-31 04:39 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 07:27 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 17:32 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 17:01 -0700
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-10-31 00:57 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-30 16:44 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-10-31 13:28 +0200
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 07:44 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-01 10:42 +0200
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 08:25 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 09:51 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-01 20:12 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 15:18 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-01 20:53 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 16:08 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-11-01 21:12 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 13:59 -0700
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-02 14:17 +0200
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 07:29 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-02 22:26 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-03 20:43 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 14:47 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-03 22:40 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 16:56 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-04 00:24 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure ??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 18:43 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure ??? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-04 02:22 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure ??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 21:02 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure ??? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-04 04:28 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure ??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 13:52 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure ??? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-04 20:20 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure ??? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-11-04 21:04 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure ??? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 20:04 +0800
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 09:50 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure !!! Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-05 17:51 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure !!! "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 12:18 -0800
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 19:29 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure !!! dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 20:43 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure !!! Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-07 16:03 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure !!! Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-07 15:59 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 10:13 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure !!! Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-07 16:41 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 10:44 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 10:27 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure ??? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-05 14:52 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure ??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 09:54 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure ??? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-05 16:52 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure on one point olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 11:10 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure on one point "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-05 12:11 -0800
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure ??? Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-04 20:10 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure ??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 14:35 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure ??? joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-04 20:51 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure ??? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 14:55 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure ??? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-04 21:43 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Closure ??? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-04 21:35 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Kaz made a great test olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 15:52 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Kaz made a great test Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-04 22:12 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Kaz code Deviation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 16:13 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Kaz code Deviation Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-04 22:33 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Kaz code Deviation "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 14:41 -0800
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Kaz code Deviation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 17:18 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Kaz code Deviation Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-05 02:08 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Kaz code Deviation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 20:24 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Kaz makes a very smart example olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-04 18:16 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-03 12:05 +0200
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-03 17:16 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-03 20:19 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-03 21:35 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-03 21:36 +0000
Olcott's revised position statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 15:48 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-03 21:57 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-02 14:10 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-31 12:35 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-31 18:00 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-31 19:46 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-31 23:10 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-01 02:47 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-01 00:14 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-01 18:09 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 12:53 -0700
A decider for the proposition "Tristan is Olcott" (Was: Semantic properties of finite string inputs) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-01 20:15 +0000
Re: A decider for the proposition "Tristan is Olcott" (Was: Semantic properties of finite string inputs) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 14:06 -0700
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-31 22:13 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-01 02:53 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- More precisely olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 21:58 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- More precisely Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 04:23 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- More precisely olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 23:37 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- More precisely Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 07:47 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- More precisely olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 08:22 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- More precisely Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 16:54 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- More precisely olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 12:50 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- More precisely Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 20:59 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- More precisely olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 16:32 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- More precisely "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 14:37 -0700
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- More precisely Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 22:11 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- More precisely olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 17:17 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- More precisely Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 23:51 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- More precisely Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-01 18:14 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 13:38 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 14:45 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 14:01 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 15:05 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 14:13 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 22:46 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 17:50 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 23:47 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 18:56 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-02 00:12 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 19:18 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-02 00:50 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 20:13 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-02 02:40 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 21:49 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-02 17:47 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-02 07:39 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-02 07:19 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 22:13 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 22:19 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 17:31 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-02 17:57 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-01 22:36 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 17:38 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-02 07:43 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 22:59 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 18:09 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-02 22:32 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 19:51 -0700
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 12:50 -0700
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-01 20:23 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 15:32 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-01 21:16 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 22:00 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 03:38 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-01 00:19 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 17:37 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-31 23:16 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 19:38 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 01:05 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-01 02:38 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 21:43 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-31 22:17 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-31 12:48 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 08:58 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-31 17:43 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 13:25 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-31 22:26 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-31 17:49 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 17:38 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-10-31 23:06 +0000
Monty Python (Was: Semantic properties of finite string inputs) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-01 20:30 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 15:36 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-31 14:06 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-31 19:57 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-31 22:32 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-01 20:36 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2025-11-02 20:49 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-02 22:44 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-03 17:32 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-03 11:57 -0600
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-02 22:48 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 03:46 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-31 12:17 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 11:51 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-31 13:42 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 13:45 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-31 20:10 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- many months of careful crafting olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 16:00 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- many months of careful crafting Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-31 22:45 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- many months of careful crafting Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-01 21:39 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- many months of careful crafting joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-01 12:01 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- many months of careful crafting olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 08:14 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-31 22:38 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-01 12:10 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 08:18 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-01 13:23 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 08:55 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 09:45 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 22:49 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 16:59 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 12:53 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 20:34 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- damned liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 16:45 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- damned liars Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 23:40 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Breakthrough olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 17:11 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Breakthrough Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 23:33 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Breakthrough olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 18:42 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Breakthrough Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 23:58 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Breakthrough olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 19:01 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Breakthrough Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-02 00:14 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Breakthrough olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 19:21 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Breakthrough Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-02 01:13 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Breakthrough "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 18:27 -0700
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Breakthrough Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-02 01:59 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- Breakthrough "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 19:24 -0700
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 17:10 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 12:15 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-11-01 17:25 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 12:29 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-01 18:03 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 20:38 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-31 17:46 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-31 13:57 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-31 20:16 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 13:26 -0700
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-10-31 20:43 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 13:57 -0700
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 16:06 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 14:22 -0700
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-01 11:55 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 08:12 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-01 13:26 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 08:56 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-10-31 14:23 -0700
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-31 22:50 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-01 21:47 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-01 00:38 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-01 21:50 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 16:57 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-10-31 22:49 -0400
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-01 21:54 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 16:59 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-01 22:28 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-11-01 13:44 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 08:57 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-11-01 16:07 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 12:07 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-11-01 17:26 +0000
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 12:31 -0500
Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-01 12:42 -0700
Page 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-01 22:13 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading |
| Message-ID | <10e6eom$1ofvo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #134716 |
On 11/1/2025 3:13 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/1/2025 2:05 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 11/1/2025 3:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/1/2025 1:45 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 11/1/2025 2:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 11/1/2025 1:14 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >>>>>> On 01/11/2025 04:23, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-11-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> On 10/31/2025 9:53 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >>>>>> [snip] >>>>>>>>> If there is a challenge for us, it is to notice that those are >>>>>>>>> the facts >>>>>>>>> of this particular situation statement. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [... new situation statement snipped ...] >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You have used up the name H for something else already; >>>>>>> do not confuse things by claiming H just simulates now! >>>>>> >>>>>> H can be an indeterminate in general, determined by each individual >>>>>> situation statement. >>>>>> >>>>>> Quite why he replied to a discussion about his other situation >>>>>> statement >>>>>> with another that is from among a group of them that is confusing >>>>>> everyone /is/ problematic. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would advise not responding to such to keep the conversation >>>>>> straightforward. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I changed it to D and H with a single argument >>>>> that do not exist in my repository, yet this >>>>> is too straightforward to form any rebuttal. >>>>> >>>> >>>> In other words, as everyone can tell, you're trying to deflect away >>>> from your code which is proven wrong by Kaz's code. >>>> >>> >>> <deflection> >> Everyone knows you're doing this because you can't prove his code wrong. >> >> > > If I am wrong Kaz can show it And he does with the code he posted. If he was wrong you could point out exactly where. > > When I insist that Kaz do this in C You dishonestly dodge that his code proves you wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-01 22:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading |
| Message-ID | <20251101151145.540@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #134712 |
On 2025-11-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/1/2025 1:45 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 11/1/2025 2:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/1/2025 1:14 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>>> On 01/11/2025 04:23, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/31/2025 9:53 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>> If there is a challenge for us, it is to notice that those are the
>>>>>>> facts
>>>>>>> of this particular situation statement.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [... new situation statement snipped ...]
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You have used up the name H for something else already;
>>>>> do not confuse things by claiming H just simulates now!
>>>>
>>>> H can be an indeterminate in general, determined by each individual
>>>> situation statement.
>>>>
>>>> Quite why he replied to a discussion about his other situation statement
>>>> with another that is from among a group of them that is confusing
>>>> everyone /is/ problematic.
>>>>
>>>> I would advise not responding to such to keep the conversation
>>>> straightforward.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I changed it to D and H with a single argument
>>> that do not exist in my repository, yet this
>>> is too straightforward to form any rebuttal.
>>>
>>
>> In other words, as everyone can tell, you're trying to deflect away from
>> your code which is proven wrong by Kaz's code.
>>
>
> If that was true then Kaz could perform his
> same "proof" on this much simpler essence
> of D simulated by H showing the trace in C.
>
> He could show the mental trace in C showing
> how D simulated by H reaches its own simulated
> "return" statement.
To trace D, we need a definition of H.
As a warm-up, I wrote up purely simulating H (under which D would not
be terminating).
Then I showed a statement-by-statement trace.
Olcott wrote a reply just snipping that and asking for a trace again.
> On 10/31/2025 7:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > I can write a C interpreter which can interpret itself.
>
> He does not show this trace in C because he knows
> that this proves that he is wrong.
>
> int D()
> {
> int Halt_Status = H(D);
> if (Halt_Status)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return Halt_Status;
> }
>
> H simulates D then D calls H(D) then what?
>
> Exactly how does D simulated by H reach
> its own simulated "return" statement?
You can clone the repo (with reckoning.cpp) and run it.
https://www.kylheku.com/git/x86utm
Write whatever H and D you want, put them into a .c file,
make an .obj file and run it.
If you have any specific questions about the result, post them here.
> *Here is my claim*
> D simulated by H according to the semantics of C
> programming language (until H sees the repeating
> pattern) does enable H to report that its simulated
> input cannot possibly reach its own simulated
> "return" statement final halt state.
> *H is a correct termination analyzer for D*
Great; code up this H with the repeating pattern, make an .obj
file and share it.
--
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 | 2025-11-01 17:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- |
| Message-ID | <10e61o1$1kn9t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #134757 |
We are done with this part On 11/1/2025 3:34 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The difference is that D simulated by H cannot possibly >> reach its own "return" statement and D simulated by H1 >> does reach its own "return" statement. > > Umm, no. Under H, the /simulation of D/ certainly does not proceed to > the point where D reaches its return statement. > Thus the input to H(D) specifies a non-terminating sequence when measured by D simulated by H. -- 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 | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-02 17:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- |
| Message-ID | <20251102094816.540@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #134759 |
On 2025-11-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> We are done with this part
>
> On 11/1/2025 3:34 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > On 2025-11-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The difference is that D simulated by H cannot possibly
> >> reach its own "return" statement and D simulated by H1
> >> does reach its own "return" statement.
> >
> > Umm, no. Under H, the /simulation of D/ certainly does not proceed to
> > the point where D reaches its return statement.
> >
>
> Thus the input to H(D) specifies a non-terminating
> sequence when measured by D simulated by H.
The behavior of D is a function <L, D>: the language in which D is
expressed and D itself.
It does not come from the manner in which H interprets D;
tht has no say in it.
The only role H has to be play is that D calls it. It is not H's
"measurement" that determines D's behavior, but the value H returns to D.
H's "measurement" is irrelevant.
If H is changed such that it measures D in exactly the same way,
deciding to abandon the simulation at exactly the same point for the
same reasons, but if instead of 0 it returns 1, then D will be
nonterminating.
The "measure" is completely irrelevant, only the choice of
return value.
H could do this:
u32 H(ptr P)
{
// initialize simulation for P
// step three times and return
DebugStep(...);
DebugStep(...);
DebugStep(...);
return 0;
}
Here H has "measured out" three steps; D is terminating.
u32 H(ptr P)
{
// initialize simulation for P
// step three times and return
DebugStep(...);
DebugStep(...);
DebugStep(...);
return 1;
}
This H "measures out" three steps; D is nonterminating.
The steps H has taken through D by simulation say absolutely nothing
about whether D is terminating or not, because they don't go far enough.
No matter how far H steps D, it is never far enough.
We can change the above from three steps to three billion;
the result is the same.
--
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 | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-01 22:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading |
| Message-ID | <10e6221$1i3jo$15@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #134757 |
On 01/11/2025 22:19, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > To trace D, we need a definition of H. The situation statement is a constraint on H, it almost defines a puzzle which may have solutions in H. Given the phrasing and the newsgroup I think that's what Olcott was going for. That is /you/ the /puzzled/ provides the H! Or /I/ the /aloof/ provides generally superior criticism. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-01 17:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading |
| Message-ID | <10e625t$1ks7f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #134760 |
On 11/1/2025 5:36 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 01/11/2025 22:19, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> To trace D, we need a definition of H. > > The situation statement is a constraint on H, it almost defines a puzzle > which may have solutions in H. Given the phrasing and the newsgroup I > think that's what Olcott was going for. > > That is /you/ the /puzzled/ provides the H! > > Or /I/ the /aloof/ provides generally superior criticism. > > -- > Tristan Wibberley > H simulates D that should be baby stuff for this guy: On 10/31/2025 7:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > I can write a C interpreter which can interpret itself. > The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except > citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, > of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it > verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to > promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation > of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general > superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train > any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that > will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements. > -- 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 | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-02 07:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading |
| Message-ID | <10e723n$1u1n7$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #134761 |
On 01/11/2025 22:38, olcott wrote: > H simulates D that should be baby stuff for this guy: > > On 10/31/2025 7:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> I can write a C interpreter which can interpret itself. I can convert amino-acids into proteins that do quantum mechanics that would make Richard Feynman weep, yet I can't wash my underpants correctly... weird how that works. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-01 22:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading |
| Message-ID | <20251101155010.536@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #134760 |
On 2025-11-01, Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > On 01/11/2025 22:19, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> To trace D, we need a definition of H. > > The situation statement is a constraint on H, it almost defines a puzzle > which may have solutions in H. Given the phrasing and the newsgroup I > think that's what Olcott was going for. > > That is /you/ the /puzzled/ provides the H! Coming up with the tracing H which aborts its simulation is Olcott's job. He did that with the "x86utm", and that has been shot down. He's now saying that working with C and x86 is too complicated; I (or someone) must implement all his work using a pure C interpreter and then show the same result. While he does nothing. Imagine you wrote a C program, and people found bugs in it, exposed by some small amount of testing/exploratory code which uses that program's internal interfaces. And you then claimed that C is too hard to understand; you don't believe the report, and your program must be correct, until the entire scenario and concept is worked in Python --- and that bbeing the burden of the bug reporters. -- 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 | 2025-11-01 18:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading |
| Message-ID | <10e6407$1lhgl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #134765 |
On 11/1/2025 5:59 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-01, Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On 01/11/2025 22:19, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> To trace D, we need a definition of H.
>>
>> The situation statement is a constraint on H, it almost defines a puzzle
>> which may have solutions in H. Given the phrasing and the newsgroup I
>> think that's what Olcott was going for.
>>
>> That is /you/ the /puzzled/ provides the H!
>
> Coming up with the tracing H which aborts its simulation is
> Olcott's job.
>
> He did that with the "x86utm", and that has been shot down.
>
It has not been shot down.
> He's now saying that working with C and x86 is too complicated; I (or
> someone) must implement all his work using a pure C interpreter and then
> show the same result.
>
The x86 language is too difficult for even the
chief editors of the most prominent computer
science journals.
> While he does nothing.
>
> Imagine you wrote a C program, and people found bugs in it, exposed
> by some small amount of testing/exploratory code which uses that
> program's internal interfaces.
>
This barest essence is inherently infallible.
Not enough details to find fault. Just enough
details to prove my point.
int D()
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
H simulates D then D calls H(D) what comes next?
> And you then claimed that C is too hard to understand;
I essentially claimed that are are pretending
to be a moron that does not know that:
what comes next? is H simulates D
On 10/31/2025 7:44 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> I can write a C interpreter which can interpret itself.
> you don't believe
> the report, and your program must be correct, until the entire scenario
> and concept is worked in Python --- and that bbeing the burden of the
> bug reporters.
>
--
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 | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-02 22:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading |
| Message-ID | <20251102142951.452@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #134766 |
On 2025-11-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/1/2025 5:59 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-01, Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: >>> On 01/11/2025 22:19, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> To trace D, we need a definition of H. >>> >>> The situation statement is a constraint on H, it almost defines a puzzle >>> which may have solutions in H. Given the phrasing and the newsgroup I >>> think that's what Olcott was going for. >>> >>> That is /you/ the /puzzled/ provides the H! >> >> Coming up with the tracing H which aborts its simulation is >> Olcott's job. >> >> He did that with the "x86utm", and that has been shot down. >> > > It has not been shot down. You are no longer accepting results produced using the x86utm. Therefore, you must not ask others to accept results producing the x86utm. When-so-ever you present x86utm traces to someone, they must tell you you are wrong unless you can show that in some other way (such as using nothing but C, perhaps). The x86utm is effectively no more. -- 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 | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-01 19:51 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading |
| Message-ID | <10e6gv4$1ol8r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #134760 |
On 11/1/2025 3:36 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> On 01/11/2025 22:19, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> To trace D, we need a definition of H.
>
> The situation statement is a constraint on H, it almost defines a puzzle
> which may have solutions in H. Given the phrasing and the newsgroup I
> think that's what Olcott was going for.
>
> That is /you/ the /puzzled/ provides the H!
>
> Or /I/ the /aloof/ provides generally superior criticism.
My try at HHH, it tries to model DD wrt each path: If HHH(DD) returns
non-zero it goes into an infinite GOTO loop. We can say this is
non-halting. If HHH(DD) returns zero, DD halts.
int DD()
{
10: int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
20: if (Halt_Status)
30: HERE: goto HERE;
40: return Halt_Status;
}
What DD actually does is dependent on HHH(DD)'s result. So, I said lets
see here... One with fuzz:
____________________________
1 HOME
5 PRINT "ct_dr_fuzz lol. ;^)"
6 P0 = 0
7 P1 = 0
10 REM Fuzzer... ;^)
20 A$ = "NOPE!"
30 IF RND(1) < .5 THEN A$ = "YES"
100 REM INPUT "Shall DD halt or not? " ; A$
110 PRINT "Shall DD halt or not? " ; A$
200 IF A$ = "YES" GOTO 666
300 P0 = P0 + 1
400 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000
500 GOTO 10
666 PRINT "OK!"
667 P1 = P1 + 1
700 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0
710 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1
720 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000
730 PRINT "ALL PATHS FAILED TO BE HIT!"
740 GOTO 10
1000
1010 PRINT "FIN... All paths hit."
1020 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0
1030 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1
____________________________
One with human:
___________________________
1 HOME
5 PRINT "HHH"
6 P0 = 0
7 P1 = 0
10 INPUT "Shall DD halt or not? " ; A$
20 IF A$ = "YES" GOTO 666
30 P0 = P0 + 1
40 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000
50 GOTO 10
666 PRINT "OK!"
667 P1 = P1 + 1
700 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0
710 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1
720 IF P0 > 0 AND P1 > 0 GOTO 1000
730 PRINT "ALL PATHS FAILED TO BE HIT!"
740 GOTO 10
1000
1010 PRINT "FIN... All paths hit."
1020 PRINT "NON_HALT P0 = "; P0
1030 PRINT "HALT P1 = "; P1
___________________________
Think of ways this can get into an infinite loop... Say always YES. It
means the user "wants" it to always halt, but my little shit says not
all paths hit, try again So, if the user types GOD DAMNIT! HALT!, my sim
will say all paths hit, fin because A$ was not YES. it's interesting to
me in a way. Say if the user types all NO. Then it will just ask over
and over again if it should halt or not... It will never terminate. Now,
meta shit... the always YES path holds "intent" a sense? So we might be
able to inject a non-yes to halt the sim and still get both paths hit.
Seems wrong, but saying YES a millions times and my sim says not all
paths hit is a bitch. But, the flip side.
Always NO, we _cannot_ say oh we got 100,000,000 non-yes. It must halt,
we just abort it, rofl, we say YES to make it all paths hit and say this
is non-terminating. The damn user says WTF!!!!!!!!!! GOD DAMNIT! I was
going to halt on iteration 100,000,123! You fucker! Piece of sHIT!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-01 12:50 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading |
| Message-ID | <10e5oa3$1gpab$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #134707 |
On 11/1/2025 11:38 AM, olcott wrote: > On 11/1/2025 1:14 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >> On 01/11/2025 04:23, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 10/31/2025 9:53 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >> [snip] >>>>> If there is a challenge for us, it is to notice that those are the >>>>> facts >>>>> of this particular situation statement. >>>>> >>>> >> >> [... new situation statement snipped ...] >> >>> >>> You have used up the name H for something else already; >>> do not confuse things by claiming H just simulates now! >> >> H can be an indeterminate in general, determined by each individual >> situation statement. >> >> Quite why he replied to a discussion about his other situation statement >> with another that is from among a group of them that is confusing >> everyone /is/ problematic. >> >> I would advise not responding to such to keep the conversation >> straightforward. >> > > I changed it to D and H with a single argument > that do not exist in my repository, yet this > is too straightforward to form any rebuttal. Yeah. That is your thing. Kaz is wrong because he has not seem you new HH_moron_kook_idoit_42 and my DD_shit_swamp_69 yet. [...]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-01 20:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading |
| Message-ID | <10e5q7r$1i3jo$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #134707 |
On 01/11/2025 18:38, olcott wrote: >>> On 2025-11-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote a new situation statement >> [... new situation statement snipped ...] > I changed it to D and H with a single argument > that do not exist in my repository, yet this > is too straightforward to form any rebuttal. > > Kaz continues to reference something much more > complex ... > I am only referring to the C code right here ... > int D() ... [snip] ...> *H is a correct termination analyzer for D* That looks to me like a different situation statement than the one that started the current topic/thread. [news:///10dvtt6$3oelt$1@dont-email.me] I think it is the conventional meaning of "am" in usenet posts to refer to a broad time interval with fuzzy edges. Some references to specific posts will help, and all participants noticing the very very big ambiguity in "am" due to different perspectives of the participants given the forum. -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-01 15:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading |
| Message-ID | <10e5qpm$1ih4r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #134727 |
On 11/1/2025 3:23 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 01/11/2025 18:38, olcott wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote a new situation statement > >>> [... new situation statement snipped ...] > >> I changed it to D and H with a single argument >> that do not exist in my repository, yet this >> is too straightforward to form any rebuttal. >> >> Kaz continues to reference something much more >> complex > ... >> I am only referring to the C code right here > ... >> int D() > ... [snip] ...> *H is a correct termination analyzer for D* > > That looks to me like a different situation statement than the one that > started the current topic/thread. > Thanks for responding. My initial estimate is that you are very competent. I checked. It is the same H and the same D and it refers to the same D simulated by H. > [news:///10dvtt6$3oelt$1@dont-email.me] > > I think it is the conventional meaning of "am" in usenet posts to refer > to a broad time interval with fuzzy edges. > > Some references to specific posts will help, and all participants > noticing the very very big ambiguity in "am" due to different > perspectives of the participants given the forum. > It has always been the exact same D and the exact same H and always refers to D simulated by H. I am only referring to the mental execution trace of D simulated by H in C. Kaz keeps trying to change the subject to Halt7.obj in x86 machine language. X86 machine language has proven to be enormously too difficult for everyone here. > -- > Tristan Wibberley > > The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except > citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, > of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it > verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to > promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation > of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general > superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train > any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that > will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements. > -- 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 | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-01 21:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading |
| Message-ID | <10e5tbj$1i3jo$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #134730 |
On 01/11/2025 20:32, olcott wrote: > Thanks for responding. My initial estimate > is that you are very competent. Thank you for the compliment, Although what are the labels of your scale? perhaps dipshit < very competent < idiot < novice < great < generally superior? Also thank you for being so patient and organised if not silent. Should I look at the web and scream now, or under the bridge and scream? How many posts in the comp.theory newsgroup of the segment of usenet I've been interacting with (if one could call it a segment) have been created/selected by non-humans? -- Tristan Wibberley The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may, of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-01 22:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Semantic properties of finite string inputs --- deliberately misleading |
| Message-ID | <20251101145000.545@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #134707 |
On 2025-11-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/1/2025 1:14 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >> On 01/11/2025 04:23, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-01, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 10/31/2025 9:53 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >> [snip] >>>>> If there is a challenge for us, it is to notice that those are the facts >>>>> of this particular situation statement. >>>>> >>>> >> >> [... new situation statement snipped ...] >> >>> >>> You have used up the name H for something else already; >>> do not confuse things by claiming H just simulates now! >> >> H can be an indeterminate in general, determined by each individual >> situation statement. >> >> Quite why he replied to a discussion about his other situation statement >> with another that is from among a group of them that is confusing >> everyone /is/ problematic. >> >> I would advise not responding to such to keep the conversation >> straightforward. >> > > I changed it to D and H with a single argument > that do not exist in my repository, yet this > is too straightforward to form any rebuttal. Yet, with regard to that old two-argument H and one-argument D, you did make claims about it that it doesn't terminate and that H shows it. That /is/ shown false. > Kaz continues to reference something much more > complex so that he can get away with his "proof" > that D simulated by H reaches its own simulated > "return" statement. I'm willing to try whatever test case you're willing to produce. I went through your history of .obj files you have published in the x86utm GitHub repo and found one that has H versus D, so I went with that. It'snot my problem that you keep muddying the waters by using multiple "H"-this and "D"-that names which you randomly repurpose for different entities. (Sometimes midway through the same argument.) > I am only referring to the C code right here > and Kaz keeps switching it to something else > to be deliberately misleading. Put that into a .c file, compile it to a .obj and publish it. Then I can have a look. Until then, it is nothing but blabbing. -- 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 | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-01 03:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251031203139.783@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #134593 |
On 2025-11-01, Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote: > On 01/11/2025 02:13, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/31/25 3:46 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >>> On 31/10/2025 18:00, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> An algorithm recognizing the presence of itself in its input is an >>>> undecidable problem. >>> >>> An algorithm recognizing the presence of a specific nominal expression >>> of itself is not. >> >> But who says the copy has the same nominal expression? > > The author of the situation statement. The author is a twit who doesn't understand the true scope of the halting problem, though. The diagonal program D does not literally have to use the decision algorithm in exactly the same implementation! 1. Someone proposes a decision algorithm., and desribes it abstractly. They also produce an implementation in some tech stack. 2. someone else takes that algorithm, and produces the program D which applies the algorithm to itself. That someone also chooses a tech stack independently of (1). Then (1) is applied to (2). Olcott doesn't understand this. The implementation produced by (1) cannot look for /literal/ copies of itself in the test case. Such a naive strategy will easily be fooled by mutated / translated versions of itself! The problem of "find code equivalent to self within this test case" is not computable. So, ... if in order to "defeat he halting problem", you throw a different, related undecidable problem in your own path, you have achieved a nonstarter. -- 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 | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-01 00:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kTfNQ.224685$ol44.125147@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #134593 |
On 10/31/25 10:53 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: > On 01/11/2025 02:13, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 10/31/25 3:46 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote: >>> On 31/10/2025 18:00, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> An algorithm recognizing the presence of itself in its input is an >>>> undecidable problem. >>> >>> An algorithm recognizing the presence of a specific nominal expression >>> of itself is not. >> >> But who says the copy has the same nominal expression? > > The author of the situation statement. Unfortuantly, the SItuation Statement is the Halting Problem, and it doesn't say that. > >> And, WHICH of the expression of the decider are you comparing to? > > The one and only one he gave in the input string "H". There's no other > to consider. And that is the address of the funciton D, and the contents of the memory that it references, which is exactly the same for both cases. > > The situation statement describes one in which the input string > specifies calling H(D), and provides for a C interpreter in which the > call remains recognisable. Which is just an admission that he isn't actually able to refute the proof, but is just using a strawman, > > It does not provide for any generality in the decision that there's a > loop of more than 5 calls. > > If there is a challenge for us, it is to notice that those are the facts > of this particular situation statement. It seems you have missed that his claim is to refute the proof of the Halting Problem by creating a decider that correct decides the specific input described in it. If his decision criteria and input don't correspond to that of the proof, he has just shown that he is just a liar. If he was willing to admit that he isn't working in the previously defined system and proof, he could define whatever he wanted, he just couldn't claim the results to apply to the original system. > > -- > Tristan Wibberley >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-31 17:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10e3dme$rmdh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #134522 |
On 10/31/2025 1:00 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-10-31, Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>> On 30/10/2025 14:49, olcott wrote:
>> [snip]
>>> H can recognize a call to itself in
>>> its input. The whole input is the
>>> text of the function D. The executable
>>> interpreters are named H.exe and H1.exe.
>>
>> Thank you for posting this. It is *super* interesting.
>
> An algorithm recognizing the presence of itself in its input is an
> undecidable problem.
>
> Equivalence of algoirthms is undecidable; i.e. the function
>
> equal_functions(f1, f2)
>
> is incomputable.
>
> Olcott's "x86utm" and "Halt7" code uses machine address equivalence as a
> substitute for function equivalence.
>
> He has two functions HHH and HHH1 which are absolutely identical
> except for their name.
void DDD() // a dumbed down version of D.
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
No dumb bunny DDD only calls one of them and this
changes everything. Since I have told you this
hundreds of times you are far far worse than a
dumb bunny.
> Yet, they trigger a different behavior,
> because the abort check in his simulation assumes that if two
> code addresses are unequal, they are different functions.
>
--
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 | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-10-31 23:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251031161014.310@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #134547 |
On 2025-10-31, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/31/2025 1:00 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-10-31, Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>>> On 30/10/2025 14:49, olcott wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>>> H can recognize a call to itself in
>>>> its input. The whole input is the
>>>> text of the function D. The executable
>>>> interpreters are named H.exe and H1.exe.
>>>
>>> Thank you for posting this. It is *super* interesting.
>>
>> An algorithm recognizing the presence of itself in its input is an
>> undecidable problem.
>>
>> Equivalence of algoirthms is undecidable; i.e. the function
>>
>> equal_functions(f1, f2)
>>
>> is incomputable.
>>
>> Olcott's "x86utm" and "Halt7" code uses machine address equivalence as a
>> substitute for function equivalence.
>>
>> He has two functions HHH and HHH1 which are absolutely identical
>> except for their name.
>
> void DDD() // a dumbed down version of D.
> {
> HHH(DDD);
> return;
> }
This is precisely what is compiled in your most recent version of
Halt7.obj.
> No dumb bunny DDD only calls one of them and this
> changes everything.
You pitiful moron. I'm informing you that it is incorrect for
there to be "them"!!!
HHH1 and HHH are just names for an identical funtion. Therefore
they are the same function.
I'm saying that your Halt7 fuckery is committing a crime against
mathematics by treating the two /names/ of the same entity as
if they were different entities.
In a correct implementation of your shit, there would be
no difference between HHH(DD) and HHH1(dD).
Because DD calls HHH, it calls HHH1. They are one and the same.
> Since I have told you this
> hundreds of times you are far far worse than a
> dumb bunny.
In math, you cannot treat multiple names for one thing
as multiple things.
If we have
theta = 3.14
phi = 3.14
sin(theta)
we cannot say garbage like "theta and phi are the same except that our
sin expression references theta and not phi".
The sin expression references 3.14. Therefore it references both
theta and phi.
That's exactly what you are doing when you say that HHH1 and HHH are the
same except that DD calls HHH and not HHH1.
If it were not for the fact that I've been here for 30 years, I might
suspect you are the dumbest fuck ever to seriously participate in
a comp.* newsgroup.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web