Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.theory > #135170 > unrolled thread

D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state

Started byolcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
First post2025-11-06 14:48 -0600
Last post2025-11-26 00:45 +0000
Articles 20 on this page of 637 — 21 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.theory


Contents

  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 6 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 32  Next page →


#135388

FromKaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com>
Date2025-11-11 04:09 +0000
Message-ID<20251110200541.406@kylheku.com>
In reply to#135386
On 2025-11-11, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/2025 9:55 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-10, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2025 5:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-10, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D) specifies.
>>>>
>>>> Insane nonsense.
>>>>
>>>> The input to H is one single D which specifies one single behavior.
>>>>
>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that
>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as itself.
>>>>
>>>> "recognizing self" is an undecidable problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> simulator.exe is
>> 
>> ... a figment of your imagination, and has whatever
>> properties you need it to have to suit whatever narrative
>> you are spinning at the moment.
>> 
>
> On 11/3/2025 10:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> >
> >
> > The interpreter API consists of primitives built
> > into the system, so it isn't traced.
> >
>
> The internals of these primitives can be imagined
> without being directly specified.

In my interpreter walkthrough I more or less specified /what/ the
interfaces do with the example. It is very clear how the simulation
object tracks the control flows and steps into statements; it is
plausible due to these details; no step requires "magical thinking"
or the solution to incomputable problems.

You are not specifying anything concrete, neither by a body of
requirements, nor by concrete example.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#135397

Fromolcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Date2025-11-11 06:59 -0600
Message-ID<10evbun$nvdu$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#135388
On 11/10/2025 10:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-11, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/10/2025 9:55 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-10, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/2025 5:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-10, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D) specifies.
>>>>>
>>>>> Insane nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> The input to H is one single D which specifies one single behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that
>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as itself.
>>>>>
>>>>> "recognizing self" is an undecidable problem.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> simulator.exe is
>>>
>>> ... a figment of your imagination, and has whatever
>>> properties you need it to have to suit whatever narrative
>>> you are spinning at the moment.
>>>
>>
>> On 11/3/2025 10:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> The interpreter API consists of primitives built
>>> into the system, so it isn't traced.
>>>
>>
>> The internals of these primitives can be imagined
>> without being directly specified.
> 
> In my interpreter walkthrough I more or less specified /what/ the
> interfaces do with the example. It is very clear how the simulation
> object tracks the control flows and steps into statements; it is
> plausible due to these details; no step requires "magical thinking"
> or the solution to incomputable problems.
> 
> You are not specifying anything concrete, neither by a body of
> requirements, nor by concrete example.
> 

typedef int (*ptr)();
int HHH(ptr P);

int DD()
{
   int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
   if (Halt_Status)
     HERE: goto HERE;
   return Halt_Status;
}

int main()
{
   HHH(DD);
}

I will just go back to my original code
if you want to play head games.

Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113a6c
[00002211][00113a5c][00113a60] 55             push ebp      // DD-01
[00002212][00113a5c][00113a60] 8bec           mov ebp,esp   // DD-02
[00002214][00113a58][00103a64] 51             push ecx      // DD-03
[00002215][00113a54][00002211] 6811220000     push 00002211 // push DD
[0000221a][00113a50][0000221f] e802f4ffff     call 00001621 // call HHH
execution_trace:113a6c
New slave_stack at:14e48c
[00002211][0015e484][0015e488] 55             push ebp      // DD-01
[00002212][0015e484][0015e488] 8bec           mov ebp,esp   // DD-02
[00002214][0015e480][0014e48c] 51             push ecx      // DD-03
[00002215][0015e47c][00002211] 6811220000     push 00002211 // push DD
[0000221a][0015e478][0000221f] e802f4ffff     call 00001621 // call HHH
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped

https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c

-- 
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]


#135399

Fromdbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Date2025-11-11 08:03 -0500
Message-ID<10evc7n$nvq8$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#135397
On 11/11/2025 7:59 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/10/2025 10:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-11, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2025 9:55 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-10, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/10/2025 5:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-10, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D) specifies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Insane nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input to H is one single D which specifies one single behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that
>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "recognizing self" is an undecidable problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> simulator.exe is
>>>>
>>>> ... a figment of your imagination, and has whatever
>>>> properties you need it to have to suit whatever narrative
>>>> you are spinning at the moment.
>>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/3/2025 10:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The interpreter API consists of primitives built
>>>> into the system, so it isn't traced.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The internals of these primitives can be imagined
>>> without being directly specified.
>>
>> In my interpreter walkthrough I more or less specified /what/ the
>> interfaces do with the example. It is very clear how the simulation
>> object tracks the control flows and steps into statements; it is
>> plausible due to these details; no step requires "magical thinking"
>> or the solution to incomputable problems.
>>
>> You are not specifying anything concrete, neither by a body of
>> requirements, nor by concrete example.
>>
> 
> typedef int (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
> 
> int DD()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> int main()
> {
>    HHH(DD);
> }
> 
> I will just go back to my original code
> if you want to play head games.
> 
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation   Execution Trace Stored at:113a6c
> [00002211][00113a5c][00113a60] 55             push ebp      // DD-01
> [00002212][00113a5c][00113a60] 8bec           mov ebp,esp   // DD-02
> [00002214][00113a58][00103a64] 51             push ecx      // DD-03
> [00002215][00113a54][00002211] 6811220000     push 00002211 // push DD
> [0000221a][00113a50][0000221f] e802f4ffff     call 00001621 // call HHH
> execution_trace:113a6c
> New slave_stack at:14e48c
> [00002211][0015e484][0015e488] 55             push ebp      // DD-01
> [00002212][0015e484][0015e488] 8bec           mov ebp,esp   // DD-02
> [00002214][0015e480][0014e48c] 51             push ecx      // DD-03
> [00002215][0015e47c][00002211] 6811220000     push 00002211 // push DD
> [0000221a][0015e478][0000221f] e802f4ffff     call 00001621 // call HHH
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
> 
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> 

You mean the code that Kaz modified to show that another thread can pick 
up the simulation of algorithm D that algorithm H abandoned and simulate 
it to a final halting state?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#135404

FromKaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com>
Date2025-11-11 19:17 +0000
Message-ID<20251111111154.515@kylheku.com>
In reply to#135397
On 2025-11-11, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/2025 10:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-11, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2025 9:55 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-10, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/10/2025 5:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-10, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D) specifies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Insane nonsense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input to H is one single D which specifies one single behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that
>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as itself.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "recognizing self" is an undecidable problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> simulator.exe is
>>>>
>>>> ... a figment of your imagination, and has whatever
>>>> properties you need it to have to suit whatever narrative
>>>> you are spinning at the moment.
>>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/3/2025 10:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The interpreter API consists of primitives built
>>>> into the system, so it isn't traced.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The internals of these primitives can be imagined
>>> without being directly specified.
>> 
>> In my interpreter walkthrough I more or less specified /what/ the
>> interfaces do with the example. It is very clear how the simulation
>> object tracks the control flows and steps into statements; it is
>> plausible due to these details; no step requires "magical thinking"
>> or the solution to incomputable problems.
>> 
>> You are not specifying anything concrete, neither by a body of
>> requirements, nor by concrete example.
>> 
>
> typedef int (*ptr)();
> int HHH(ptr P);
>
> int DD()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
>    HHH(DD);
> }
>
> I will just go back to my original code
> if you want to play head games.

It has been shown with actual programming against your code framework
that abortind deciders leave behind continuable simulations, which may
terminate.

Mike Terry has evidently taken the code and perfected it; he removed all
your invalid hacks from the "H" and "D" resulting in pure functions.
With that he actually obtained evidence of an infinite simulation
tower starting up in which the individual D's terminate.

You've done a number of things wrong in the Halt7 test cases:

- conflating instruction traces from multiple independent simulations
  into one stream, thus falsely identifying recursion where there is
  none.

- using a "Root" flag to get a top-level HHH to behave differently
  from the child HHH instances, so that it's two different functions.

You cannot be pulling such stunts if you're going to present
anything to serious academia.

Every HHH must have an e

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#135407

Fromolcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Date2025-11-11 15:38 -0600
Message-ID<10f0acu$11cs1$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#135404
On 11/11/2025 1:17 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-11, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/10/2025 10:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-11, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/2025 9:55 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-10, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 5:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D) specifies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Insane nonsense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The input to H is one single D which specifies one single behavior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that
>>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as itself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "recognizing self" is an undecidable problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> simulator.exe is
>>>>>
>>>>> ... a figment of your imagination, and has whatever
>>>>> properties you need it to have to suit whatever narrative
>>>>> you are spinning at the moment.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 11/3/2025 10:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The interpreter API consists of primitives built
>>>>> into the system, so it isn't traced.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The internals of these primitives can be imagined
>>>> without being directly specified.
>>>
>>> In my interpreter walkthrough I more or less specified /what/ the
>>> interfaces do with the example. It is very clear how the simulation
>>> object tracks the control flows and steps into statements; it is
>>> plausible due to these details; no step requires "magical thinking"
>>> or the solution to incomputable problems.
>>>
>>> You are not specifying anything concrete, neither by a body of
>>> requirements, nor by concrete example.
>>>
>>
>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>
>> int DD()
>> {
>>     int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>     if (Halt_Status)
>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>     return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>>     HHH(DD);
>> }
>>
>> I will just go back to my original code
>> if you want to play head games.
> 
> It has been shown with actual programming against your code framework
> that abortind deciders leave behind continuable simulations, which may
> terminate.

Only if you don't resume them at the
exact same state where you left them
and that is flat our cheating.

> 
> Mike Terry has evidently taken the code and perfected it; he removed all
> your invalid hacks from the "H" and "D" resulting in pure functions.
> With that he actually obtained evidence of an infinite simulation
> tower starting up in which the individual D's terminate.
> 

Yet that is clearly cheating.
Whether or not it is possible for HHH to determine
that its input DOES NOT HALT any sufficiently competent
C programmer (that is not a damned liar) can easily
see this.

The non-halting behavior axiom is only differs from
infinite recursion in that it is recursive simulation
and not recursive invocation.

I honestly cannot believe that anyone denying
that the input to HHH(DD) does not halt as
anything but a damned liar. Not any ordinary
liar, a liar that is literally condemned to
actual Hell (if such a place exists).

> You've done a number of things wrong in the Halt7 test cases:
> 
> - conflating instruction traces from multiple independent simulations
>    into one stream, thus falsely identifying recursion where there is
>    none.
> 
> - using a "Root" flag to get a top-level HHH to behave differently
>    from the child HHH instances, so that it's two different functions.
> 
> You cannot be pulling such stunts if you're going to present
> anything to serious academia.
> 
> Every HHH must have an e
> 


-- 
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]


#135408

Fromdbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com>
Date2025-11-11 16:56 -0500
Message-ID<10f0bf5$11k5o$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#135407
On 11/11/2025 4:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/11/2025 1:17 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-11, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2025 10:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-11, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/10/2025 9:55 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-10, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 5:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D) specifies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Insane nonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The input to H is one single D which specifies one single behavior.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that
>>>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as itself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "recognizing self" is an undecidable problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> simulator.exe is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... a figment of your imagination, and has whatever
>>>>>> properties you need it to have to suit whatever narrative
>>>>>> you are spinning at the moment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/3/2025 10:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The interpreter API consists of primitives built
>>>>>> into the system, so it isn't traced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The internals of these primitives can be imagined
>>>>> without being directly specified.
>>>>
>>>> In my interpreter walkthrough I more or less specified /what/ the
>>>> interfaces do with the example. It is very clear how the simulation
>>>> object tracks the control flows and steps into statements; it is
>>>> plausible due to these details; no step requires "magical thinking"
>>>> or the solution to incomputable problems.
>>>>
>>>> You are not specifying anything concrete, neither by a body of
>>>> requirements, nor by concrete example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>>     int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>     if (Halt_Status)
>>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>>     return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>     HHH(DD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> I will just go back to my original code
>>> if you want to play head games.
>>
>> It has been shown with actual programming against your code framework
>> that abortind deciders leave behind continuable simulations, which may
>> terminate.
> 
> Only if you don't resume them at the
> exact same state where you left them
> and that is flat our cheating.

And resuming at exactly the same state is precisely what happens.

Remember, the directly executed function H is not part of the simulation 
and therefore neither is its state.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#135409 — How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability

Fromolcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Date2025-11-11 19:38 -0600
SubjectHow pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability
Message-ID<10f0oe3$14vu8$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#135407
On 11/11/2025 3:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/11/2025 1:17 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-11, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2025 10:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-11, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/10/2025 9:55 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-10, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 5:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D) specifies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Insane nonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The input to H is one single D which specifies one single behavior.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that
>>>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as itself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "recognizing self" is an undecidable problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> simulator.exe is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... a figment of your imagination, and has whatever
>>>>>> properties you need it to have to suit whatever narrative
>>>>>> you are spinning at the moment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/3/2025 10:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The interpreter API consists of primitives built
>>>>>> into the system, so it isn't traced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The internals of these primitives can be imagined
>>>>> without being directly specified.
>>>>
>>>> In my interpreter walkthrough I more or less specified /what/ the
>>>> interfaces do with the example. It is very clear how the simulation
>>>> object tracks the control flows and steps into statements; it is
>>>> plausible due to these details; no step requires "magical thinking"
>>>> or the solution to incomputable problems.
>>>>
>>>> You are not specifying anything concrete, neither by a body of
>>>> requirements, nor by concrete example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>>     int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>     if (Halt_Status)
>>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>>     return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>     HHH(DD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> I will just go back to my original code
>>> if you want to play head games.
>>
>> It has been shown with actual programming against your code framework
>> that abortind deciders leave behind continuable simulations, which may
>> terminate.
> 
> Only if you don't resume them at the
> exact same state where you left them
> and that is flat our cheating.
> 
>>
>> Mike Terry has evidently taken the code and perfected it; he removed all
>> your invalid hacks from the "H" and "D" resulting in pure functions.
>> With that he actually obtained evidence of an infinite simulation
>> tower starting up in which the individual D's terminate.
>>
> 
> Yet that is clearly cheating.
> Whether or not it is possible for HHH to determine
> that its input DOES NOT HALT any sufficiently competent
> C programmer (that is not a damned liar) can easily
> see this.
> 
> The non-halting behavior axiom is only differs from
> infinite recursion in that it is recursive simulation
> and not recursive invocation.
> 
> I honestly cannot believe that anyone denying
> that the input to HHH(DD) does not halt as
> anything but a damned liar. Not any ordinary
> liar, a liar that is literally condemned to
> actual Hell (if such a place exists).
> 

The reason that I am so harsh about this is because
a system that can compute truth can end the killing
of the entire planet by very well paid hired liars.
My paper outlines many key details required to
accomplish this.

We are moving the USA to the brink of the rise of
the fourth Reich only because True(x) is not computable.

Trump is about 45% of the way to achieving Hitler's
own power only because we cannot effectively counter
his Nazi propaganda.

When True(x) is computable an LLM can counter-act every
liar every which way simultaneously.

*How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability*
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/397442168_How_pathological_self-reference_is_confused_with_undecidability 


https://philpapers.org/archive/OLCMTO-2.pdf

https://claude.ai/share/c9df30cf-ff71-46bf-9647-c78ed95cb389


>> You've done a number of things wrong in the Halt7 test cases:
>>
>> - conflating instruction traces from multiple independent simulations
>>    into one stream, thus falsely identifying recursion where there is
>>    none.
>>
>> - using a "Root" flag to get a top-level HHH to behave differently
>>    from the child HHH instances, so that it's two different functions.
>>
>> You cannot be pulling such stunts if you're going to present
>> anything to serious academia.
>>
>> Every HHH must have an e
>>
> 
> 


-- 
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]


#135410 — Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability

FromKaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com>
Date2025-11-12 02:13 +0000
SubjectRe: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability
Message-ID<20251111181105.962@kylheku.com>
In reply to#135409
On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> The reason that I am so harsh about this is because
> a system that can compute truth can end the killing
> of the entire planet by very well paid hired liars.
>
> My paper outlines many key details required to
> accomplish this.

As the crank turns ...

> We are moving the USA to the brink of the rise of
> the fourth Reich only because True(x) is not computable.

Get help, and make sure that includes med prescriptions.

> Trump is about 45% of the way to achieving Hitler's
> own power only because we cannot effectively counter
> his Nazi propaganda.

You are more koo-koo than Toucan Sam is for Cocoa Puffs.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#135412 — Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability

Fromolcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Date2025-11-11 20:33 -0600
SubjectRe: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability
Message-ID<10f0rmo$15l7c$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#135410
On 11/11/2025 8:13 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The reason that I am so harsh about this is because
>> a system that can compute truth can end the killing
>> of the entire planet by very well paid hired liars.
>>

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts

Rhetoric over reasoning really is killing the whole planet

-- 
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]


#135414 — Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability

Fromolcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Date2025-11-11 21:05 -0600
SubjectRe: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability
Message-ID<10f0th7$16258$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#135410
On 11/11/2025 8:13 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> The reason that I am so harsh about this is because
>> a system that can compute truth can end the killing
>> of the entire planet by very well paid hired liars.
>>
>> My paper outlines many key details required to
>> accomplish this.
> 
> As the crank turns ...
> 
>> We are moving the USA to the brink of the rise of
>> the fourth Reich only because True(x) is not computable.
> 
> Get help, and make sure that includes med prescriptions.
> 
>> Trump is about 45% of the way to achieving Hitler's
>> own power only because we cannot effectively counter
>> his Nazi propaganda.
> 
> You are more koo-koo than Toucan Sam is for Cocoa Puffs.
> 

The key tell the Trump is exactly copying Hitler
was his lies about election fraud perfectly
duplicated Chapter 6 of Hitler's Mein Kampf
CHAPTER VI. WAR PROPAGANDA

#LiesAboutElectionFraud

Never any evidence of election fraud
that could possibly change the results.

Trump is just copying Hitler's "big lie"
There are many more things since then.

-- 
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]


#135415 — Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability

Fromolcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Date2025-11-11 21:45 -0600
SubjectRe: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability
Message-ID<10f0vse$16n7r$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#135414
On 11/11/2025 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/11/2025 8:13 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> The reason that I am so harsh about this is because
>>> a system that can compute truth can end the killing
>>> of the entire planet by very well paid hired liars.
>>>
>>> My paper outlines many key details required to
>>> accomplish this.
>>
>> As the crank turns ...
>>
>>> We are moving the USA to the brink of the rise of
>>> the fourth Reich only because True(x) is not computable.
>>
>> Get help, and make sure that includes med prescriptions.
>>
>>> Trump is about 45% of the way to achieving Hitler's
>>> own power only because we cannot effectively counter
>>> his Nazi propaganda.
>>
>> You are more koo-koo than Toucan Sam is for Cocoa Puffs.
>>
> 
> The key tell the Trump is exactly copying Hitler
> was his lies about election fraud perfectly
> duplicated Chapter 6 of Hitler's Mein Kampf
> CHAPTER VI. WAR PROPAGANDA
> 
> #LiesAboutElectionFraud
> 
> Never any evidence of election fraud
> that could possibly change the results.
> 
> Trump is just copying Hitler's "big lie"
> There are many more things since then.
> 

For those that are sleepwalking toward totalitarianism
(the opposite of woke) Besides Trump following Hitler's
Mein Kampf as if it was his bible is all of the recent
actions of consolidating his power.

These are written up in Project 2025 that he disavows
yet follows exactly. Project 2025 is Trump's Mein Kampf.

-- 
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]


#135417 — Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability

FromKaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com>
Date2025-11-12 05:52 +0000
SubjectRe: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability
Message-ID<20251111215158.776@kylheku.com>
In reply to#135415
On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> For those that are sleepwalking toward totalitarianism

... says the gullible twit who thinks LLMs are sentient.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#135418 — Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability

Fromolcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Date2025-11-11 23:59 -0600
SubjectRe: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability
Message-ID<10f17o9$188es$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#135417
On 11/11/2025 11:52 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> For those that are sleepwalking toward totalitarianism
> 
> ... says the gullible twit who thinks LLMs are sentient.
> 

Alternatively stupid people that understand nothing
yet have catch phrases that convince fools.


-- 
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]


#135420 — Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability

FromKaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com>
Date2025-11-12 06:13 +0000
SubjectRe: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability
Message-ID<20251111221205.197@kylheku.com>
In reply to#135418
On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2025 11:52 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> For those that are sleepwalking toward totalitarianism
>> 
>> ... says the gullible twit who thinks LLMs are sentient.
>> 
>
> Alternatively stupid people that understand nothing
> yet have catch phrases that convince fools.

The only difference between you and someone who repeats
catch phrases is that your repeated shit isn't catchy.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#135426 — Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability

Fromolcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Date2025-11-12 06:50 -0600
SubjectRe: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability
Message-ID<10f1vq7$1eir5$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#135420
On 11/12/2025 12:13 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/11/2025 11:52 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> For those that are sleepwalking toward totalitarianism
>>>
>>> ... says the gullible twit who thinks LLMs are sentient.
>>>
>>
>> Alternatively stupid people that understand nothing
>> yet have catch phrases that convince fools.
> 
> The only difference between you and someone who repeats
> catch phrases is that your repeated shit isn't catchy.
> 

In other words you can pay enough attention to realize
the dire consequences of climate change that our politicians
are lying about because of their huge bribes from fossil
fuel companies.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336568434_Severe_anthropogenic_climate_change_proven_entirely_with_verifiable_facts

Rhetoric over reasoning really is killing the whole planet

-- 

-- 
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]


#136052 — Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability

FromKaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com>
Date2025-11-19 04:41 +0000
SubjectRe: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability
Message-ID<10fjhqf$216hh$3@dont-email.me>
In reply to#135418
On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2025 11:52 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> For those that are sleepwalking toward totalitarianism
>> 
>> ... says the gullible twit who thinks LLMs are sentient.
>> 
>
> Alternatively stupid people that understand nothing
> yet have catch phrases that convince fools.

The only difference between you and someone who repeats
catch phrases is that your repeated shit isn't catchy.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#136051 — Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability

FromKaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com>
Date2025-11-19 04:41 +0000
SubjectRe: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability
Message-ID<10fjhps$216hh$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#135415
On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> For those that are sleepwalking toward totalitarianism

... says the gullible twit who thinks LLMs are sentient.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#136050 — Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability

FromKaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com>
Date2025-11-19 04:41 +0000
SubjectRe: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability
Message-ID<10fjhpc$216hh$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#135409
On 2025-11-12, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> The reason that I am so harsh about this is because
> a system that can compute truth can end the killing
> of the entire planet by very well paid hired liars.
>
> My paper outlines many key details required to
> accomplish this.

As the crank turns ...

> We are moving the USA to the brink of the rise of
> the fourth Reich only because True(x) is not computable.

Get help, and make sure that includes med prescriptions.

> Trump is about 45% of the way to achieving Hitler's
> own power only because we cannot effectively counter
> his Nazi propaganda.

You are more koo-koo than Toucan Sam is for Cocoa Puffs.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#135411

FromKaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com>
Date2025-11-12 02:20 +0000
Message-ID<20251111181427.813@kylheku.com>
In reply to#135407
On 2025-11-11, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/2025 1:17 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-11, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/10/2025 10:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-11, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/10/2025 9:55 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-10, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 5:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D) specifies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Insane nonsense.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The input to H is one single D which specifies one single behavior.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that
>>>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as itself.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "recognizing self" is an undecidable problem.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> simulator.exe is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ... a figment of your imagination, and has whatever
>>>>>> properties you need it to have to suit whatever narrative
>>>>>> you are spinning at the moment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/3/2025 10:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The interpreter API consists of primitives built
>>>>>> into the system, so it isn't traced.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The internals of these primitives can be imagined
>>>>> without being directly specified.
>>>>
>>>> In my interpreter walkthrough I more or less specified /what/ the
>>>> interfaces do with the example. It is very clear how the simulation
>>>> object tracks the control flows and steps into statements; it is
>>>> plausible due to these details; no step requires "magical thinking"
>>>> or the solution to incomputable problems.
>>>>
>>>> You are not specifying anything concrete, neither by a body of
>>>> requirements, nor by concrete example.
>>>>
>>>
>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>>     int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>     if (Halt_Status)
>>>       HERE: goto HERE;
>>>     return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>>     HHH(DD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> I will just go back to my original code
>>> if you want to play head games.
>> 
>> It has been shown with actual programming against your code framework
>> that abortind deciders leave behind continuable simulations, which may
>> terminate.
>
> Only if you don't resume them at the
> exact same state where you left them
> and that is flat our cheating.

The parameters required for the next DebugStep of the abandoned
simulation are correctly determined.

You need to point out the exact lines of code which have the problem
that you are alleging, and give details about that problem, otherwise
you are blabbing about nothing.

-- 
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#135413

Fromolcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
Date2025-11-11 20:41 -0600
Message-ID<10f0s4q$15o38$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#135411
On 11/11/2025 8:20 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-11, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/11/2025 1:17 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-11, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/10/2025 10:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-11, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 9:55 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 5:09 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D) specifies.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Insane nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The input to H is one single D which specifies one single behavior.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that
>>>>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as itself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "recognizing self" is an undecidable problem.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> simulator.exe is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ... a figment of your imagination, and has whatever
>>>>>>> properties you need it to have to suit whatever narrative
>>>>>>> you are spinning at the moment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/3/2025 10:28 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The interpreter API consists of primitives built
>>>>>>> into the system, so it isn't traced.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The internals of these primitives can be imagined
>>>>>> without being directly specified.
>>>>>
>>>>> In my interpreter walkthrough I more or less specified /what/ the
>>>>> interfaces do with the example. It is very clear how the simulation
>>>>> object tracks the control flows and steps into statements; it is
>>>>> plausible due to these details; no step requires "magical thinking"
>>>>> or the solution to incomputable problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are not specifying anything concrete, neither by a body of
>>>>> requirements, nor by concrete example.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>
>>>> int DD()
>>>> {
>>>>      int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>      if (Halt_Status)
>>>>        HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>      return Halt_Status;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>>      HHH(DD);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> I will just go back to my original code
>>>> if you want to play head games.
>>>
>>> It has been shown with actual programming against your code framework
>>> that abortind deciders leave behind continuable simulations, which may
>>> terminate.
>>
>> Only if you don't resume them at the
>> exact same state where you left them
>> and that is flat our cheating.
> 
> The parameters required for the next DebugStep of the abandoned
> simulation are correctly determined.
> 
> You need to point out the exact lines of code which have the problem
> that you are alleging, and give details about that problem, otherwise
> you are blabbing about nothing.
> 

Like you are too stupid to recognize that recursive
simulation derives the exact same non-halting behavior
pattern as infinite recursion? I DON'T BUY IT !!!

Are you really this stupid or just a liar?
I know that Mike is not this stupid he proved
his technical competence in far too many ways.

That he proposed this also seems to prove he is not a liar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man#Steelmanning

A software engineer Not being able to recognize
behavior exactly the same as infinite recursion
is the same as a PhD math professor that does
not know how to do first grade arithmetic.



-- 
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


Page 6 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 32  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.theory


csiph-web