Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #135170 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-06 14:48 -0600 |
| Last post | 2025-11-26 00:45 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 637 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 14:48 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 15:55 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 21:10 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 15:32 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-06 22:07 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:16 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:26 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:32 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:55 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:00 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:12 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:32 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:43 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:59 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:28 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:37 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:50 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:56 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:57 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 22:07 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:24 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:27 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:52 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:58 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:08 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:52 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 00:00 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:16 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 01:46 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 20:46 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:01 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 04:16 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:19 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 23:27 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-07 10:45 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 06:55 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 21:43 +0800
Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:06 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 22:12 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:28 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 22:35 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:38 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 22:55 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 09:06 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 23:17 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 09:20 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 23:34 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 09:53 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-08 00:07 +0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-07 14:16 +0000
Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:29 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-06 21:31 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:45 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 03:59 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-06 22:07 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 23:11 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 23:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:02 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:04 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:01 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:05 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:30 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:36 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:44 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:51 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:54 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:57 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:58 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 01:22 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:25 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 03:41 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:00 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-07 10:05 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 06:57 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-08 10:05 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-08 07:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-09 12:22 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-09 06:51 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 06:17 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 08:40 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 23:14 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 18:27 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 04:02 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 09:43 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 11:28 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 23:19 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 21:58 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-10 11:43 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 08:48 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 23:09 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 17:53 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 03:55 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 21:59 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 04:09 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 06:59 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 08:03 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 19:17 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 15:38 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 16:56 -0500
How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 19:38 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 02:13 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 20:33 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 21:05 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 21:45 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 05:52 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 23:59 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 06:13 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:50 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:41 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:41 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:41 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 02:20 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 20:41 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 06:11 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 07:37 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-12 15:03 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 09:11 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:16 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 21:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:30 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 21:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-13 04:44 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:55 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 08:32 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 07:38 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 17:40 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 13:20 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 19:38 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 14:22 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-11 10:59 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 07:04 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 08:05 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-12 09:09 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:54 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 10:48 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:50 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:21 +0200
The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:00 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-15 12:15 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:12 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-16 11:18 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:12 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-17 10:43 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-18 12:23 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 10:43 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-18 18:04 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 12:26 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 18:51 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 14:01 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 20:24 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 14:39 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 21:30 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:43 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:48 -0600
Weasel word double talk excuses =--- AKA Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:57 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-19 11:46 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 06:59 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-20 11:10 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 12:01 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:17 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:29 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 18:35 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 13:55 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:58 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 21:47 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 15:53 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 22:19 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 16:48 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:00 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 23:55 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:20 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 00:39 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:51 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:02 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:24 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:42 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 02:00 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:37 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 04:15 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 06:51 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 08:59 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:16 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:17 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 07:41 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 07:40 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:00 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:39 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:59 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:26 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 04:19 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:39 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-27 04:48 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:58 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 07:06 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:16 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:21 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> - 2025-11-27 07:45 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:08 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:38 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:05 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:05 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:18 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 16:27 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 01:25 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 16:24 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 16:36 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:14 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:49 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:58 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:14 +0200
The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:46 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 10:59 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:27 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:38 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 14:58 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-01 12:45 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 06:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 14:29 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 08:38 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 14:45 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 08:57 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:06 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:19 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:26 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:29 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:31 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:39 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:48 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:55 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 16:00 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 10:27 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 16:41 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 18:24 -0600
Olcott is provably correct --- no one can correctly refute this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 19:54 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-02 11:07 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 08:14 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 13:34 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 10:27 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 11:17 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:15 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:23 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-06 17:26 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:21 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:40 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:37 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:24 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:18 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:52 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 11:01 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 09:37 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-11 10:56 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 07:02 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 08:04 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 13:19 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-12 09:12 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:56 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 10:51 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 01:00 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:56 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 19:12 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 14:39 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:24 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:12 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-15 12:23 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:14 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-16 11:21 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 15:39 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:15 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 16:24 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 17:13 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 11:40 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-17 10:46 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:34 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-18 12:26 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 10:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 21:21 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:29 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 01:01 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:27 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 02:53 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 21:07 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:30 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:31 +0000
DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 22:45 -0600
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:52 +0000
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 23:08 -0600
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 00:14 -0500
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 05:23 +0000
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-19 10:58 +0000
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 06:18 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-23 21:20 +0000
Glossary of names of my simulating termination analyzer HHH(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 16:29 -0600
Re: Glossary of names of my simulating termination analyzer HHH(DD) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-24 11:23 +0200
Re: Glossary of names of my simulating termination analyzer HHH(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 07:30 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-19 11:50 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 07:01 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-20 11:11 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:54 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 21:58 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 23:09 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 06:49 +0000
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:22 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 17:51 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 12:06 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:08 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:08 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 03:53 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 07:03 +0000
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:33 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 17:56 +0000
Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 13:29 -0600
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:00 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 23:02 -0600
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 05:23 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 05:24 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 14:53 -0600
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 13:32 -0800
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 02:44 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 02:45 +0000
DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 21:15 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 23:54 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 16:32 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 16:32 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 10:37 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 17:55 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 12:08 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:22 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:30 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:20 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:31 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:45 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-24 17:23 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-25 05:10 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 23:25 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:34 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 05:43 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 23:51 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:21 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 17:37 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 12:52 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 17:59 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 12:32 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 12:28 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:45 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 10:45 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2025-11-24 19:45 +0100
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-24 18:12 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 12:21 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:30 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:32 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:15 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:25 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 17:21 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 13:47 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 11:20 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:27 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:14 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:22 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 17:19 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 16:15 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 16:25 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 01:39 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 02:15 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 22:12 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-24 23:33 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 18:33 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 16:37 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-25 02:10 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 22:10 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:38 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:47 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:35 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 19:43 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:45 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-24 17:24 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 01:42 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 02:15 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 22:35 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 07:00 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 07:00 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 08:56 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:49 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:39 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:44 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:06 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:50 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:06 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 09:44 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:46 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-25 19:19 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:35 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 20:27 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 20:27 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:52 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 16:42 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 20:38 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:56 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:32 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-28 17:24 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 12:09 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-22 10:25 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-24 22:30 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 16:20 +0100
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 09:47 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 16:50 +0100
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 10:09 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:33 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:36 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 11:37 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:29 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:39 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:44 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:04 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:09 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 19:08 +0000
Olcott creates a new foundation for automated correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:22 -0600
Re: Olcott creates a new foundation for automated correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 16:47 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:35 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 16:45 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:05 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-26 17:13 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:36 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:41 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:08 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:52 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 18:46 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:18 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 12:05 -0800
New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:20 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:09 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:12 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:27 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 17:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:25 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:00 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:04 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:14 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:42 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 00:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:52 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:57 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:29 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:32 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:29 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:45 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:34 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 17:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 19:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:36 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:38 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:36 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:32 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:15 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:36 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:22 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:20 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:31 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:43 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:42 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:29 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:54 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-28 17:22 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 16:31 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:42 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 15:01 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:46 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:22 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:27 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:33 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:50 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:58 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:21 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:54 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:55 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:58 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:11 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:23 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:01 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:06 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:59 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:27 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:00 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:08 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:12 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:36 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:41 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:43 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:24 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:30 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:07 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:04 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:58 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:30 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:35 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:44 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:14 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:13 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:36 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:48 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 12:53 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 10:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 11:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 11:13 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:55 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:21 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:50 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 11:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-08 11:08 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:05 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-13 13:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 09:55 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-15 11:52 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 09:49 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-17 12:49 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:45 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:37 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:02 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:08 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:28 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 05:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:15 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:08 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:18 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:14 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 01:48 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:05 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:27 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:40 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:03 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 16:29 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:31 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 17:09 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:40 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:45 +0000
Page 2 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 32 Next page →
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 19:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10ejfnr$1h72u$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135212 |
On 11/6/2025 7:45 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/6/2025 6:37 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 7:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 6:02 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2025 6:59 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:43 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 11/6/2025 6:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 6:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:00 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:35 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:07 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 06 Nov 2025 15:32:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have know that for many years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That goes directly against your claims. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with D's behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(D) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only specifies the behavior of D simulated by H. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody cares about H. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a simulating halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are beyond the pail. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never ending? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly matched we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are done. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now you only need to prove the correctness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you take that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the result was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That we be the same as asking are we sure that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Loop() never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminates? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s not the same. D halts when executed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The is off topic because that is out-of-scope >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for any termination analyzer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D >>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is the description of machine D and therefore is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulated to specify all semantic properties of machine D >>>>>>>>>>>>>> including that it halts when executed directly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It requires H to have the psychic powers to see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps that are not the steps that its actual input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> False. As proven above, the steps that the actual input >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H(D) actually specifies are those of the directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed machine D. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> If that was true then you could show the steps of D >>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by H reaching its simulated "return" statement >>>>>>>>>>>>> nitwit. None of the moronic stopping and starting over >>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That the input to H(D), i.e. the finite string description >>>>>>>>>>>> of machine D, specifies all semantic properties of the >>>>>>>>>>>> directly executed D is a semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are too fucking stupid to >>>>>>>>>>> show the actual steps. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is a semantic tautology >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is not a semantic tautology >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Disagreeing with a semantic tautology is always incorrect >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are getting close to being plonked. >>>>>> >>>>>> It's not my fault you don't understand stipulative definitions. >>>>>> Here's one: >>>>>> >>>>>> Turing machine description: a finite string that specifies all >>>>>> semantic properties of the machine being described. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Good you are being responsive. We can build an honest >>>>> dialogue on this basis. >>>> >>>> Then you agree that >>> >>> No you have to go back and read the rest of what I said. >> >> On 4/2/22 6:43 PM, olcott wrote: >> > It is incorrect to disagree with stipulative definitions. >> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition >> > >> > Disagreeing with a stipulative definition is like disagreeing with >> > arithmetic. >> >> > > *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* And you pointed out no such disagreement.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 18:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10ejg3v$1hck1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135214 |
On 11/6/2025 6:50 PM, dbush wrote: > On 11/6/2025 7:45 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 6:37 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 7:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2025 6:02 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 11/6/2025 6:59 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:43 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 6:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 6:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:00 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:35 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:07 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 06 Nov 2025 15:32:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have know that for many years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That goes directly against your claims. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with D's behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> input to H(D) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only specifies the behavior of D simulated by H. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody cares about H. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a simulating halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are beyond the pail. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never ending? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly matched we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are done. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now you only need to prove the correctness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you take that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the result was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That we be the same as asking are we sure that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Loop() never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminates? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s not the same. D halts when executed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The is off topic because that is out-of-scope >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for any termination analyzer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is the description of machine D and therefore is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulated to specify all semantic properties of machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D including that it halts when executed directly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It requires H to have the psychic powers to see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps that are not the steps that its actual input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False. As proven above, the steps that the actual input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H(D) actually specifies are those of the directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed machine D. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that was true then you could show the steps of D >>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by H reaching its simulated "return" statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>> nitwit. None of the moronic stopping and starting over >>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> That the input to H(D), i.e. the finite string description >>>>>>>>>>>>> of machine D, specifies all semantic properties of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> directly executed D is a semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are too fucking stupid to >>>>>>>>>>>> show the actual steps. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is a semantic tautology >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is not a semantic tautology >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Disagreeing with a semantic tautology is always incorrect >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are getting close to being plonked. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It's not my fault you don't understand stipulative definitions. >>>>>>> Here's one: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Turing machine description: a finite string that specifies all >>>>>>> semantic properties of the machine being described. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Good you are being responsive. We can build an honest >>>>>> dialogue on this basis. >>>>> >>>>> Then you agree that >>>> >>>> No you have to go back and read the rest of what I said. >>> >>> On 4/2/22 6:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>> > It is incorrect to disagree with stipulative definitions. >>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition >>> > >>> > Disagreeing with a stipulative definition is like disagreeing with >>> > arithmetic. >>> >>> >> >> *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* > > And you pointed out no such disagreement. > You were so damned sure that I was wrong that you did not let me explain. Do you understand how and that stipulative definitions can be incorrect? -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 19:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10ejg5n$1h72u$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135217 |
On 11/6/2025 7:56 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/6/2025 6:50 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 7:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 6:37 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2025 7:28 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 11/6/2025 6:02 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 11/6/2025 6:59 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:43 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 6:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 6:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:00 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:35 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:32 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:26 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:07 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 06 Nov 2025 15:32:51 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have know that for many years. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That goes directly against your claims. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with D's behavior. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We don't give a rat's ass about the behavior of D. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to H(D) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only specifies the behavior of D simulated by H. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nobody cares about H. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that a simulating halt >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider can leave a simulation object with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unfinished steps, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Absolutely. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are beyond the pail. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such that those do not matter, and pronounce that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation to be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never ending? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As soon as a non-terminating behavior pattern is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly matched we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are done. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Now you only need to prove the correctness. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> They are going to ask the obvious question: what if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you take that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so the result was >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That we be the same as asking are we sure that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Loop() never >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terminates? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It’s not the same. D halts when executed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The is off topic because that is out-of-scope >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for any termination analyzer. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which is the description of machine D and therefore is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stipulated to specify all semantic properties of machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D including that it halts when executed directly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It requires H to have the psychic powers to see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steps that are not the steps that its actual input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually specifies. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> False. As proven above, the steps that the actual input >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H(D) actually specifies are those of the directly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed machine D. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that was true then you could show the steps of D >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by H reaching its simulated "return" statement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nitwit. None of the moronic stopping and starting over >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bullshit. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That the input to H(D), i.e. the finite string description >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of machine D, specifies all semantic properties of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly executed D is a semantic tautology. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are too fucking stupid to >>>>>>>>>>>>> show the actual steps. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It is a semantic tautology >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It is not a semantic tautology >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Disagreeing with a semantic tautology is always incorrect >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are getting close to being plonked. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It's not my fault you don't understand stipulative definitions. >>>>>>>> Here's one: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Turing machine description: a finite string that specifies all >>>>>>>> semantic properties of the machine being described. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good you are being responsive. We can build an honest >>>>>>> dialogue on this basis. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then you agree that >>>>> >>>>> No you have to go back and read the rest of what I said. >>>> >>>> On 4/2/22 6:43 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> > It is incorrect to disagree with stipulative definitions. >>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition >>>> > >>>> > Disagreeing with a stipulative definition is like disagreeing with >>>> > arithmetic. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> *Unless a set of stipulative definitions disagrees with itself* >> >> And you pointed out no such disagreement. >> > > You were so damned sure that I was wrong that > you did not let me explain. Do you understand > how and that stipulative definitions can be incorrect? > On 4/2/22 6:43 PM, olcott wrote: > It is incorrect to disagree with stipulative definitions. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stipulative_definition > > Disagreeing with a stipulative definition is like disagreeing with > arithmetic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 22:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251106133959.780@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135176 |
On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>> simulated final halt state. >> >> "Simulation of D" and "D" are not the same. >> >> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >> D reaches a halt state. >> > > I have know that for many years. Is this new to you? No; however, you blankly acknowledging it like this is rather what is starkly new! While in the past you have insisted that "stopping running is not the same as halting", the above statement is broader and more correct, equivalent to "stopping running is not the same as halting /or/ non-halting"; i.e. "stopping running is unrelated to halting". (Where "stopping running" refers to conducting the simulation, and "halting" is the actual subject's halting state.) You've never acknowledged that "stopping running" is no not the same as "non-halting". Your entire rehtoric that you've been repeating about D simulated by H not reaching its return statement, is predicated on not acknowledging that stopping running is not the same thing not halting. > That we be the same as asking are we sure that > Infinite_Loop() never terminates? Do we need to > look at this again? You're the one saying that the input to H specifies only the behavior of the input as simulated by H. H only simulates a finite portion of the behavior of Infinite_Loop. So for your rhetoric to be consistent, you have to believe that true is a correct return value for H(Infinite_Loop). I now remember that this was exactly what prompted me to joke about that weeks back. So, rather, the reason why H(Infinite_Loop) -> false is correct is that Infinite_Loop specifies a behavior regardless of the existence of H. H recognizes that the behavior keeps going indefinitely past the point where it decides to stop simulating. H is making a statement about that remainder of the behavior of Infinite_loop that it has /not/ simulated. But according to you, that part of the behavior, the part not simulated by H, is osmething that the input does not specify. So you are saying that H(Infinite_Loop) -> false is a remark about an aspect of the input that the input does not specify: its future behavior after the point where H stops simulating it. >> You need a /rational/ argument to explain why that is forbidden; >> you cannot just /decree/ that it is so. >> > > No rational argument needed simply look at > the execution trace. > >> That's not how things work in the intellectual arts. >> > > You are simply totally wrong on this point about > resuming a simulation. OK, good luck trying that on CS professors and other academic peer reviewers. > >>> We just proved that the input to H(D) specifies >>> non-halting. Anything beyond this is flogging a >>> dead horse. >> >> English language figures of speech are not a substitute >> for logical reasoning. > > That you just don't get it does not entail > that I am incorrect. I completely get that you want H to be talking about something else: an imaginary H' which steps forever, and an imaginary D' which calls UTM(D). It's incorrect though; the imaginary D' is not the input. It's not classically the input, and it's not the input under your rules either: H simply does not simulate any portion of D'. It is simulating D which calls H, and not an imaginary D' which calls UTM. Those two do not have anything in common. They diverge right from the start. The first thing D does is call H(D), whereas the first thing D' does is call UTM(D'). -- 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 | 2025-11-06 16:24 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10ej77h$1euer$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135174 |
On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >> simulated final halt state. > > "Simulation of D" and "D" are not the same. > > A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) > D reaches a halt state. > We are never taking about the directly executed D. Try again. > Only a correct, complete simulation of D coincides > with D's behavior. > >> I am not going to talk about any non-nonsense of >> resuming a simulation after we already have this >> final answer. > > And you think that statements like this will not be an obstacle when you > present your work to cs/math academia? > > Do you think that CS academics will buy the idea that a simulating > halt decider can leave a simulation object with unfinished steps, > such that those do not matter, and pronounce that simulation to be > never ending? > > They are going to ask the obvious question: what if you take that > simulation and peform more steps, surely it halts, so the result was > wrong. > > You need a /rational/ argument to explain why that is forbidden; > you cannot just /decree/ that it is so. > > That's not how things work in the intellectual arts. > >> We just proved that the input to H(D) specifies >> non-halting. Anything beyond this is flogging a >> dead horse. > > English language figures of speech are not a substitute > for logical reasoning. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 17:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10ej7cs$1e4nl$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135182 |
On 11/6/2025 5:24 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>> simulated final halt state. >> >> "Simulation of D" and "D" are not the same. >> >> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >> D reaches a halt state. >> > > We are never taking about the directly executed D. Then you are admitting that what you're talking about has nothing to do with the halting problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 16:52 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10ej8ro$1fbnb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135184 |
On 11/6/2025 4:27 PM, dbush wrote: > On 11/6/2025 5:24 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>> simulated final halt state. >>> >>> "Simulation of D" and "D" are not the same. >>> >>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>> D reaches a halt state. >>> >> >> We are never taking about the directly executed D. > > Then you are admitting that what you're talking about Is proving that the halting problem has always been fundamentally incorrect in that it requires Turing machines to have psychic powers to report on a different sequence of steps than the sequence of steps that its input actually specifies. If you don't address this specific point and instead spew out dogma you will be *plonked* > has nothing to do > with the halting problem. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 17:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10ej96t$1fbjq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135187 |
On 11/6/2025 5:52 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/6/2025 4:27 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 5:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>> >>>> "Simulation of D" and "D" are not the same. >>>> >>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>> >>> >>> We are never taking about the directly executed D. >> >> Then you are admitting that what you're talking about > > Is proving that the halting problem has always > been fundamentally incorrect in that it requires > Turing machines to have psychic powers to report > on a different sequence of steps than the sequence > of steps that its input actually specifies. False. Just like it is not incorrect to require Mythic numbers to be both greater than 5 and less than 3, it is not incorrect to require a halt decider to report whether any arbitrary Turing machine X with input Y will halt when executed directly. It just means that halt deciders, like Mythic numbers, don't exist. > > If you don't address this specific point and > instead spew out dogma you will be *plonked* > >> has nothing to do with the halting problem. >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 17:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10ej9pt$1fktr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135189 |
On 11/6/2025 4:58 PM, dbush wrote: > On 11/6/2025 5:52 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 4:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 5:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>>> >>>>> "Simulation of D" and "D" are not the same. >>>>> >>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>>> >>>> >>>> We are never taking about the directly executed D. >>> >>> Then you are admitting that what you're talking about >> >> Is proving that the halting problem has always >> been fundamentally incorrect in that it requires >> Turing machines to have psychic powers to report >> on a different sequence of steps than the sequence >> of steps that its input actually specifies. > > False. Just like it is not incorrect to require Mythic numbers to be You cannot truthfully assess this as false UNTIL AFTER YOU HAVE HEARD ALL OF MY POINTS. The halting problem DOES REQUIRE deciders to to report on a different sequence of steps than the sequence of steps that their ACTUAL INPUTS ACTUALLY SPECIFY. (Not plonked yet) you did slightly address the point. > both greater than 5 and less than 3, it is not incorrect to require a > halt decider to report whether any arbitrary Turing machine X with input > Y will halt when executed directly. > > It just means that halt deciders, like Mythic numbers, don't exist. > >> >> If you don't address this specific point and >> instead spew out dogma you will be *plonked* >> >>> has nothing to do with the halting problem. >>> >> >> > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 18:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10ejbc1$1e4nl$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135193 |
On 11/6/2025 6:08 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/6/2025 4:58 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 5:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 4:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2025 5:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Simulation of D" and "D" are not the same. >>>>>> >>>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We are never taking about the directly executed D. >>>> >>>> Then you are admitting that what you're talking about >>> >>> Is proving that the halting problem has always >>> been fundamentally incorrect in that it requires >>> Turing machines to have psychic powers to report >>> on a different sequence of steps than the sequence >>> of steps that its input actually specifies. >> >> False. Just like it is not incorrect to require Mythic numbers to be > > You cannot truthfully assess this as false > UNTIL AFTER YOU HAVE HEARD ALL OF MY POINTS. > You've been saying the same points with slight variations in wording for the last 3 years. > The halting problem DOES REQUIRE deciders to > to report on a different sequence of steps than > the sequence of steps that their > ACTUAL INPUTS ACTUALLY SPECIFY. False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D which is the description of machine D and therefore is stipulated to specify all semantic properties of machine D including that it halts when executed directly. Therefore, the steps that the actual input to H(D) actually specifies are those of the directly executed machine D. It's just that algorithm H doesn't correctly report on those steps. > > (Not plonked yet) you did slightly address the point. > >> both greater than 5 and less than 3, it is not incorrect to require a >> halt decider to report whether any arbitrary Turing machine X with >> input Y will halt when executed directly. >> >> It just means that halt deciders, like Mythic numbers, don't exist. >> >>> >>> If you don't address this specific point and >>> instead spew out dogma you will be *plonked* >>> >>>> has nothing to do with the halting problem. >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 17:45 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10ejbuo$1gbjr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135196 |
On 11/6/2025 5:35 PM, dbush wrote: > On 11/6/2025 6:08 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 4:58 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 5:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2025 4:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Simulation of D" and "D" are not the same. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We are never taking about the directly executed D. >>>>> >>>>> Then you are admitting that what you're talking about >>>> >>>> Is proving that the halting problem has always >>>> been fundamentally incorrect in that it requires >>>> Turing machines to have psychic powers to report >>>> on a different sequence of steps than the sequence >>>> of steps that its input actually specifies. >>> >>> False. Just like it is not incorrect to require Mythic numbers to be >> >> You cannot truthfully assess this as false >> UNTIL AFTER YOU HAVE HEARD ALL OF MY POINTS. >> > > You've been saying the same points with slight variations in wording for > the last 3 years. > Because I cannot move on to the second step of my proof until the first step is understood. The first step of my proof is that D simulated by H cannot reach its own simulated "return" statement. I went through all of my steps of all of my different halting problem proofs with Claude AI and it understood all of them. It did not quite accept all of my conclusions but it did understand every step of several different proofs. The sessions yesterday with Claude AI made much more progress than all of the human reviewers (from every forum) put together over the last 22 years. Humans begin with minds almost entirely closed. >> The halting problem DOES REQUIRE deciders to >> to report on a different sequence of steps than >> the sequence of steps that their >> ACTUAL INPUTS ACTUALLY SPECIFY. > > False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D which is the > description of machine D and therefore is stipulated to specify all > semantic properties of machine D including that it halts when executed > directly. > > Therefore, the steps that the actual input to H(D) actually specifies > are those of the directly executed machine D. > > It's just that algorithm H doesn't correctly report on those steps. > >> >> (Not plonked yet) you did slightly address the point. >> >>> both greater than 5 and less than 3, it is not incorrect to require a >>> halt decider to report whether any arbitrary Turing machine X with >>> input Y will halt when executed directly. >>> >>> It just means that halt deciders, like Mythic numbers, don't exist. >>> >>>> >>>> If you don't address this specific point and >>>> instead spew out dogma you will be *plonked* >>>> >>>>> has nothing to do with the halting problem. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >> > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 18:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10ejcbp$1e4nl$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135199 |
On 11/6/2025 6:45 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/6/2025 5:35 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 6:08 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 4:58 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2025 5:52 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 11/6/2025 4:27 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> On 11/6/2025 5:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/6/2025 3:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own >>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Simulation of D" and "D" are not the same. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A partial simulation of D does not show whether (or not) >>>>>>>> D reaches a halt state. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We are never taking about the directly executed D. >>>>>> >>>>>> Then you are admitting that what you're talking about >>>>> >>>>> Is proving that the halting problem has always >>>>> been fundamentally incorrect in that it requires >>>>> Turing machines to have psychic powers to report >>>>> on a different sequence of steps than the sequence >>>>> of steps that its input actually specifies. >>>> >>>> False. Just like it is not incorrect to require Mythic numbers to be >>> >>> You cannot truthfully assess this as false >>> UNTIL AFTER YOU HAVE HEARD ALL OF MY POINTS. >>> >> >> You've been saying the same points with slight variations in wording >> for the last 3 years. >> > > Because I cannot move on to the second step of > my proof until the first step is understood. > > The first step of my proof is that D simulated > by H cannot reach its own simulated "return" > statement. Rejected out-of-hand as unclear, as "D" and "H" in the above sentence can refer to a C function, an algorithm, or a finite string, and the meaning changes depending on which one is chosen. Add exactly one of the following qualifiers to all instances of "D" and "H" in the above sentence: * C function * algorithm * finite string > > I went through all of my steps of all of my > different halting problem proofs with Claude AI > and it understood all of them. > > It did not quite accept all of my conclusions > but it did understand every step of several > different proofs. The sessions yesterday with > Claude AI made much more progress than all > of the human reviewers (from every forum) put > together over the last 22 years. > > Humans begin with minds almost entirely closed. > >>> The halting problem DOES REQUIRE deciders to >>> to report on a different sequence of steps than >>> the sequence of steps that their >>> ACTUAL INPUTS ACTUALLY SPECIFY. >> >> False, because the input to H(D), i.e. finite string D which is the >> description of machine D and therefore is stipulated to specify all >> semantic properties of machine D including that it halts when executed >> directly. >> >> Therefore, the steps that the actual input to H(D) actually specifies >> are those of the directly executed machine D. >> >> It's just that algorithm H doesn't correctly report on those steps. >> >>> >>> (Not plonked yet) you did slightly address the point. >>> >>>> both greater than 5 and less than 3, it is not incorrect to require >>>> a halt decider to report whether any arbitrary Turing machine X with >>>> input Y will halt when executed directly. >>>> >>>> It just means that halt deciders, like Mythic numbers, don't exist. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you don't address this specific point and >>>>> instead spew out dogma you will be *plonked* >>>>> >>>>>> has nothing to do with the halting problem. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-07 00:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251106155703.492@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135200 |
On 2025-11-06, dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> wrote: > Rejected out-of-hand as unclear, as "D" and "H" in the above sentence > can refer to a C function, an algorithm, or a finite string, and the > meaning changes depending on which one is chosen. Not only to that. "D" can refer to "simulation of D" which subdivides into "partial simulation of D" and "complete simulation of D". The D which is a "simulation of D" has no return statement; it is the C function D which has that statement. So D simulated by H (D, the partial simulation of D) not reaching its return statement really means that something which doesn't /have/ a return statement is of course not reaching what it does not have. -- 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 | 2025-11-06 18:16 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10ejdof$1gsml$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135202 |
On 11/6/2025 6:00 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-06, dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> wrote: >> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear, as "D" and "H" in the above sentence >> can refer to a C function, an algorithm, or a finite string, and the >> meaning changes depending on which one is chosen. > Your concrete example is brilliant I am going to rebuild something very similar on the basis of a C interpreter. > Not only to that. "D" can refer to "simulation of D" which subdivides > into "partial simulation of D" and "complete simulation of D". > That has always been crazy nonsense. It has only always been the single continuous simulation of D by H that proves that D cannot possibly halt. You can monkey around with all kinds of screwy stuff to get gullible people here to believe that infinite loops halt. > The D which is a "simulation of D" has no return statement; it is > the C function D which has that statement. > > So D simulated by H (D, the partial simulation of D) not reaching > its return statement really means that something which doesn't /have/ a > return statement is of course not reaching what it does not have. > -- 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 | 2025-11-07 01:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251106172333.334@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135206 |
On 2025-11-07, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/6/2025 6:00 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-06, dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear, as "D" and "H" in the above sentence
>>> can refer to a C function, an algorithm, or a finite string, and the
>>> meaning changes depending on which one is chosen.
>>
>
> Your concrete example is brilliant I am going
> to rebuild something very similar on the basis
> of a C interpreter.
>
>> Not only to that. "D" can refer to "simulation of D" which subdivides
>> into "partial simulation of D" and "complete simulation of D".
>>
>
> That has always been crazy nonsense. It has only
> always been the single continuous simulation
> of D by H that proves that D cannot possibly halt.
No, what doesn't halt is H' simulating D'. H' is a different decider
which is jsut a UTM. Ih the language of our "concrete example" it does
this:
bool H_prime(void (*P)(void), interp *s) // using new API
{
while (!interp_step(s)) { }
return true;
}
and D' is this: it looks similar to D, but calls H':
void D_prime(void)
{
interp *s = interp_init(D_prime);
if (H_prime(D_prime, s)) { for (;;) }
return;
}
In D_prime, the H_prime call does not return. It never reaches its the
"do opposite" logic. We completely agree!
But D_prime is not D, and H_prime is not H.
You have been trying to say that this: that /if/, /hypothetically/,
H were not to abort the simulation of D, then it would turn into H'
and therefore D would turn into D'. And because that D' is
nonterminating, it is somehow "philosophically okay" for H to claim that
D is nonterminating, because D' is nonterminating. You claim that the H
decision is correct because it should be interpreted as being really
about D'.
Yet, at the same time, you vehemently insist that the input to H
is D simulated by H, and not the directly executed D,
because H only operates on the "finite string that is its
actual input".
What you actually mean is that the true input to H is D'!
That's the function that does not terminate: D' is what we would
get if H were not to abort, because H would then be H'.
D' is /literally/ not an input to H; it is different from D,
right from its first step. D' calls H'(D'), wheras D calls H(D).
I don't agree that the input to H(D) is actually D'.
Somewhat separately from that, I don't agree that D' could ever be
considered the finite string input in the expression H(D), since D and
D' are different and unrelated.
I.e. you say that the true finite string input in H(D) is "the behavior
of D simulated by H". But the decision is actually about D', which has
nothing to do with "D simulated by H".
I don't misunderstand; I just deny that what you are proposing
is "philosophically okay".
> You can monkey around with all kinds of screwy
> stuff to get gullible people here to believe
> that infinite loops halt.
But the halting of the diagonal cases rejected by their simulating
decider has been reproduced with the x86utm.
Mike Terry even produced a clean HHH and DD pair of test cases which
eliminate all shared, mutable, static data.
He actually observed the start of the tower; seeing numerous levels of D
simulations starting up --- and individually terminating.
Exactly was was predicted in discussions.
--
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 | 2025-11-06 20:46 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10ejmj3$1iovh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135224 |
On 11/6/2025 7:46 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-07, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/6/2025 6:00 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-06, dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear, as "D" and "H" in the above sentence
>>>> can refer to a C function, an algorithm, or a finite string, and the
>>>> meaning changes depending on which one is chosen.
>>>
>>
>> Your concrete example is brilliant I am going
>> to rebuild something very similar on the basis
>> of a C interpreter.
>>
>>> Not only to that. "D" can refer to "simulation of D" which subdivides
>>> into "partial simulation of D" and "complete simulation of D".
>>>
>>
>> That has always been crazy nonsense. It has only
>> always been the single continuous simulation
>> of D by H that proves that D cannot possibly halt.
>
> No, what doesn't halt is H' simulating D'. H' is a different decider
> which is jsut a UTM. Ih the language of our "concrete example" it does
> this:
>
Not exactly. Your H is a UTM in a for loop.
This by itself proves the repeating pattern
that prevents D simulated by H to ever reach
its own simulated "return" statement.
> bool H_prime(void (*P)(void), interp *s) // using new API
> {
> while (!interp_step(s)) { }
> return true;
> }
>
> and D' is this: it looks similar to D, but calls H':
>
> void D_prime(void)
> {
> interp *s = interp_init(D_prime);
> if (H_prime(D_prime, s)) { for (;;) }
> return;
> }
>
> In D_prime, the H_prime call does not return. It never reaches its the
> "do opposite" logic. We completely agree!
>
> But D_prime is not D, and H_prime is not H.
>
> You have been trying to say that this: that /if/, /hypothetically/,
> H were not to abort the simulation of D, then it would turn into H'
> and therefore D would turn into D'. And because that D' is
> nonterminating, it is somehow "philosophically okay" for H to claim that
> D is nonterminating, because D' is nonterminating. You claim that the H
> decision is correct because it should be interpreted as being really
> about D'.
>
I have no idea what you are saying here.
> Yet, at the same time, you vehemently insist that the input to H
> is D simulated by H, and not the directly executed D,
> because H only operates on the "finite string that is its
> actual input".
>
Yes this has been a verified fact for three years.
> What you actually mean is that the true input to H is
In the updated version a finite string of ASCII characters
that defines a C function that calls its own C interpreter.
> D'!
> That's the function that does not terminate: D' is what we would
> get if H were not to abort, because H would then be H'.
>
> D' is /literally/ not an input to H; it is different from D,
> right from its first step. D' calls H'(D'), wheras D calls H(D).
>
> I don't agree that the input to H(D) is actually D'.
>
> Somewhat separately from that, I don't agree that D' could ever be
> considered the finite string input
Then you are rejecting reality.
> in the expression H(D), since D and
> D' are different and unrelated.
>
> I.e. you say that the true finite string input in H(D) is "the behavior
> of D simulated by H". But the decision is actually about D', which has
> nothing to do with "D simulated by H".
>
When you ask Mary a yes/no question she is not
in a different parallel universe depending on
her answer.
> I don't misunderstand; I just deny that what you are proposing
> is "philosophically okay".
>
>> You can monkey around with all kinds of screwy
>> stuff to get gullible people here to believe
>> that infinite loops halt.
>
> But the halting of the diagonal cases
Hides all of the details, it should actually be
called halting in all of the "do the opposite" cases.
> rejected by their simulating
> decider has been reproduced with the x86utm.
>
> Mike Terry even produced a clean HHH and DD pair of test cases which
> eliminate all shared, mutable, static data.
>
Mike Terry understands my code better than anyone
else he seems to have a total blind spot about key
elements of my algorithm.
> He actually observed the start of the tower; seeing numerous levels of D
> simulations starting up --- and individually terminating.
>
That only happens when you screw up the specified
execution trace.
It flat out nutty to do anything at all besides reject
an input when the behavior OF THIS INPUT CORRECTLY MATCHES
A CORRECT NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR PATTERN.
It just seems like you and Mike fail to understand
CORRECT NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR PATTERNS.
> Exactly was was predicted in discussions.
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 22:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10ejne5$1i52b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135225 |
On 11/6/2025 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/6/2025 7:46 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-07, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/6/2025 6:00 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-06, dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear, as "D" and "H" in the above sentence
>>>>> can refer to a C function, an algorithm, or a finite string, and the
>>>>> meaning changes depending on which one is chosen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your concrete example is brilliant I am going
>>> to rebuild something very similar on the basis
>>> of a C interpreter.
>>>
>>>> Not only to that. "D" can refer to "simulation of D" which subdivides
>>>> into "partial simulation of D" and "complete simulation of D".
>>>>
>>>
>>> That has always been crazy nonsense. It has only
>>> always been the single continuous simulation
>>> of D by H that proves that D cannot possibly halt.
>>
>> No, what doesn't halt is H' simulating D'. H' is a different decider
>> which is jsut a UTM. Ih the language of our "concrete example" it does
>> this:
>>
>
> Not exactly. Your H is a UTM in a for loop.
No, his algorithm H_prime is in a for loop, showing that algorithm
D_prime doesn't halt.
> This by itself proves the repeating pattern
> that prevents D simulated by H to ever reach
> its own simulated "return" statement.
>
>> bool H_prime(void (*P)(void), interp *s) // using new API
>> {
>> while (!interp_step(s)) { }
>> return true;
>> }
>>
>> and D' is this: it looks similar to D, but calls H':
>>
>> void D_prime(void)
>> {
>> interp *s = interp_init(D_prime);
>> if (H_prime(D_prime, s)) { for (;;) }
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> In D_prime, the H_prime call does not return. It never reaches its the
>> "do opposite" logic. We completely agree!
>>
>> But D_prime is not D, and H_prime is not H.
>>
>> You have been trying to say that this: that /if/, /hypothetically/,
>> H were not to abort the simulation of D, then it would turn into H'
>> and therefore D would turn into D'. And because that D' is
>> nonterminating, it is somehow "philosophically okay" for H to claim that
>> D is nonterminating, because D' is nonterminating. You claim that the H
>> decision is correct because it should be interpreted as being really
>> about D'.
>>
>
> I have no idea what you are saying here.
He's saying that H(D) is reporting on the non-input D'
>
>> Yet, at the same time, you vehemently insist that the input to H
>> is D simulated by H, and not the directly executed D,
>> because H only operates on the "finite string that is its
>> actual input".
>>
>
> Yes this has been a verified fact for three years.
>
>> What you actually mean is that the true input to H is
>
> In the updated version a finite string of ASCII characters
> that defines a C function that calls its own C interpreter.
>
>> D'!
>> That's the function that does not terminate: D' is what we would
>> get if H were not to abort, because H would then be H'.
>>
>> D' is /literally/ not an input to H; it is different from D,
>> right from its first step. D' calls H'(D'), wheras D calls H(D).
>>
>> I don't agree that the input to H(D) is actually D'.
>>
>> Somewhat separately from that, I don't agree that D' could ever be
>> considered the finite string input
>
> Then you are rejecting reality.
No, stating that D' is the input to H(D) is rejecting reality.
>
>> in the expression H(D), since D and
>> D' are different and unrelated.
>>
>> I.e. you say that the true finite string input in H(D) is "the behavior
>> of D simulated by H". But the decision is actually about D', which has
>> nothing to do with "D simulated by H".
>>
>
> When you ask Mary a yes/no question she is not
> in a different parallel universe depending on
> her answer.
Strawman: Mary is not an algorithm.
>
>> I don't misunderstand; I just deny that what you are proposing
>> is "philosophically okay".
>>
>>> You can monkey around with all kinds of screwy
>>> stuff to get gullible people here to believe
>>> that infinite loops halt.
>>
>> But the halting of the diagonal cases
>
> Hides all of the details, it should actually be
> called halting in all of the "do the opposite" cases.
>
>> rejected by their simulating
>> decider has been reproduced with the x86utm.
>>
>> Mike Terry even produced a clean HHH and DD pair of test cases which
>> eliminate all shared, mutable, static data.
>>
>
> Mike Terry understands my code better than anyone
> else he seems to have a total blind spot about key
> elements of my algorithm.
>
>> He actually observed the start of the tower; seeing numerous levels of D
>> simulations starting up --- and individually terminating.
>>
>
> That only happens when you screw up the specified
> execution trace.
Nope, having a separate thread pick up the simulation started and
abandoned by algorithm H is valid.
>
> It flat out nutty to do anything at all besides reject
> an input when the behavior OF THIS INPUT CORRECTLY MATCHES
> A CORRECT NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR PATTERN.
But it is not a correct non-halting behavior pattern as proven by the
fact that it exists in the halting algorithm D.
>
> It just seems like you and Mike fail to understand
> CORRECT NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR PATTERNS.
No, you fail to understand that non-halting behavior patterns don't
exist in halting algorithms.
>
>> Exactly was was predicted in discussions.
>>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-07 04:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20251106195954.142@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135225 |
On 2025-11-07, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/6/2025 7:46 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-07, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/6/2025 6:00 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-06, dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear, as "D" and "H" in the above sentence
>>>>> can refer to a C function, an algorithm, or a finite string, and the
>>>>> meaning changes depending on which one is chosen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your concrete example is brilliant I am going
>>> to rebuild something very similar on the basis
>>> of a C interpreter.
>>>
>>>> Not only to that. "D" can refer to "simulation of D" which subdivides
>>>> into "partial simulation of D" and "complete simulation of D".
>>>>
>>>
>>> That has always been crazy nonsense. It has only
>>> always been the single continuous simulation
>>> of D by H that proves that D cannot possibly halt.
>>
>> No, what doesn't halt is H' simulating D'. H' is a different decider
>> which is jsut a UTM. Ih the language of our "concrete example" it does
>> this:
>>
>
> Not exactly. Your H is a UTM in a for loop.
No; my H has a for loop which steps three instructions after
which it returns false.
> This by itself proves the repeating pattern
> that prevents D simulated by H to ever reach
> its own simulated "return" statement.
D' simulated by H' never reaches its return statement.
>> You have been trying to say that this: that /if/, /hypothetically/,
>> H were not to abort the simulation of D, then it would turn into H'
>> and therefore D would turn into D'. And because that D' is
>> nonterminating, it is somehow "philosophically okay" for H to claim that
>> D is nonterminating, because D' is nonterminating. You claim that the H
>> decision is correct because it should be interpreted as being really
>> about D'.
>>
>
> I have no idea what you are saying here.
Oh, but if I just coollapse H and H' under one name, and likewise
D and D' then it will all suddenly make sense, right? ?
>> Yet, at the same time, you vehemently insist that the input to H
>> is D simulated by H, and not the directly executed D,
>> because H only operates on the "finite string that is its
>> actual input".
>>
>
> Yes this has been a verified fact for three years.
>
>> What you actually mean is that the true input to H is
>
> In the updated version a finite string of ASCII characters
> that defines a C function that calls its own C interpreter.
>
>> D'!
>> That's the function that does not terminate: D' is what we would
>> get if H were not to abort, because H would then be H'.
>>
>> D' is /literally/ not an input to H; it is different from D,
>> right from its first step. D' calls H'(D'), wheras D calls H(D).
>>
>> I don't agree that the input to H(D) is actually D'.
>>
>> Somewhat separately from that, I don't agree that D' could ever be
>> considered the finite string input
>
> Then you are rejecting reality.
>
>> in the expression H(D), since D and
>> D' are different and unrelated.
>>
>> I.e. you say that the true finite string input in H(D) is "the behavior
>> of D simulated by H". But the decision is actually about D', which has
>> nothing to do with "D simulated by H".
>>
>
> When you ask Mary a yes/no question she is not
> in a different parallel universe depending on
> her answer.
If Mary is a deterministic machine, then, yes, we do have to consider
different Marys in different parallel universes in order have both a
yes and no answer.
In any one universe, Deterministic Mary gives one answer. Mary can only
be a differently defined Mary in a different universe.
Real people are not functions of the input you give them, though.
Based on their mental state, they can give you a yes to a
certain question and at a different time a no to exactly
the same question.
>> Mike Terry even produced a clean HHH and DD pair of test cases which
>> eliminate all shared, mutable, static data.
>>
>
> Mike Terry understands my code better than anyone
> else he seems to have a total blind spot about key
> elements of my algorithm.
Sure; it couldn't possibly be that he has no blind spot and is actually
right, right?
>> He actually observed the start of the tower; seeing numerous levels of D
>> simulations starting up --- and individually terminating.
>>
>
> That only happens when you screw up the specified
> execution trace.
Says you, but you can't point to the details of where they are screwed.
> It flat out nutty to do anything at all besides reject
> an input when the behavior OF THIS INPUT CORRECTLY MATCHES
> A CORRECT NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR PATTERN.
Test cases in your Halt7 do not match a correct non-halting
behavior pattern.
You have mistaken the initiation of a new simulation to be a loop.
In the abstract "pure C" example, we can see that clearly.
D() calls H(D), which calls s = interp_create(D) and then interp_step(s).
As soon as it calls interp_step(s), the first step of D is executed.
According to a naive analysis which ignores simulation levels
and just jumbles together all the step events, it looks like
a backwards branch!
D has not yet executed the if (H(D)) conditional, yet ...
the instruction pointer is back at the top of D!
> It just seems like you and Mike fail to understand
> CORRECT NON-HALTING BEHAVIOR PATTERNS.
You don't understand that you cannot put all the trace events
from multiple simulations into a single buffer, and then
declare that there is a loop just because "CALL HHH, DD"
appears twice without an interfering conditional!!!
Those CALLS are not coming form the same simulation;
they are not in the same instruction stream.
If you write a C program which launches multiple threads
at a function:
for (i = 0; i < 100; i++)
thread_t id = thread_create(function, ...);
Suppose function is this:
void function(void)
{
other_function();
}
Suppose other_function is this:
void other_function()
{
thread_exit(0);
}
What happens? Since 50 threads are launched, function
is entered 50 times, and 50 calls to other_function
take place.
Now imagine we are gathering execution events from all
the thread instruction streams, putting them into one
buffer.
We are going to see 50 occurrences of "CALL OTHER_FUNCTION".
And in between those, there won't be any conditionals.
After seeing the first two or three such CALL instructions, without any
conditional in between, are we correct to say that there
is an endless loop?
There is no loop: it's different threads---which quickly terminate.
We just wrongly combined their instruction events into
a single buffer, and came to a comically wrong conclusion.
what's going to happen? The
>
>> Exactly was was predicted in discussions.
>>
>
>
--
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 | 2025-11-06 22:19 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <10ejs0g$1k5f6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135233 |
On 11/6/2025 10:16 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-07, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/6/2025 7:46 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-07, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/6/2025 6:00 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>> On 2025-11-06, dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear, as "D" and "H" in the above sentence >>>>>> can refer to a C function, an algorithm, or a finite string, and the >>>>>> meaning changes depending on which one is chosen. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Your concrete example is brilliant I am going >>>> to rebuild something very similar on the basis >>>> of a C interpreter. >>>> >>>>> Not only to that. "D" can refer to "simulation of D" which subdivides >>>>> into "partial simulation of D" and "complete simulation of D". >>>>> >>>> >>>> That has always been crazy nonsense. It has only >>>> always been the single continuous simulation >>>> of D by H that proves that D cannot possibly halt. >>> >>> No, what doesn't halt is H' simulating D'. H' is a different decider >>> which is jsut a UTM. Ih the language of our "concrete example" it does >>> this: >>> >> >> Not exactly. Your H is a UTM in a for loop. > > No; my H has a for loop which steps three instructions after > which it returns false. > >> This by itself proves the repeating pattern >> that prevents D simulated by H to ever reach >> its own simulated "return" statement. > > D' simulated by H' never reaches its return statement. > Most importantly the D directly simulated by the executed H never reaches its own "return" statement. All the rest is weasel word deflection away from this point. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-06 23:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <10ejsev$1k2o4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135234 |
On 11/6/2025 11:19 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/6/2025 10:16 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-07, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/6/2025 7:46 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>> On 2025-11-07, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/6/2025 6:00 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>>>>> On 2025-11-06, dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> Rejected out-of-hand as unclear, as "D" and "H" in the above >>>>>>> sentence >>>>>>> can refer to a C function, an algorithm, or a finite string, and the >>>>>>> meaning changes depending on which one is chosen. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Your concrete example is brilliant I am going >>>>> to rebuild something very similar on the basis >>>>> of a C interpreter. >>>>> >>>>>> Not only to that. "D" can refer to "simulation of D" which subdivides >>>>>> into "partial simulation of D" and "complete simulation of D". >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That has always been crazy nonsense. It has only >>>>> always been the single continuous simulation >>>>> of D by H that proves that D cannot possibly halt. >>>> >>>> No, what doesn't halt is H' simulating D'. H' is a different decider >>>> which is jsut a UTM. Ih the language of our "concrete example" it does >>>> this: >>>> >>> >>> Not exactly. Your H is a UTM in a for loop. >> >> No; my H has a for loop which steps three instructions after >> which it returns false. >> >>> This by itself proves the repeating pattern >>> that prevents D simulated by H to ever reach >>> its own simulated "return" statement. >> >> D' simulated by H' never reaches its return statement. >> > > Most importantly the D directly simulated by the executed > H never reaches its own "return" statement. All the rest > is weasel word deflection away from this point. Dismissed out-of-hand as unclear (see below) On 11/6/2025 7:49 PM, dbush wrote: > So going forward, all uses of "H" and "D" in a sentence are required to > be qualified as either an algorithm, a function or a finite string. > > Failure to do so will result in any sentence using such unqualified > usage to be dismissed out-of-hand as unclear.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web