Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #135517 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-14 00:08 +0000 |
| Last post | 2025-11-27 00:35 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 170 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 00:08 +0000
Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 18:36 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 00:45 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 18:57 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 02:32 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:38 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 06:35 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:13 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 18:01 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 12:19 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 18:56 +0000
Defending against libelous assessments of my work olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 13:18 -0600
Re: Defending against libelous assessments of my work Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 19:45 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:42 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:39 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 06:39 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:25 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 18:22 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 12:31 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 18:48 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 13:08 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 19:54 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:17 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 20:33 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 15:13 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 21:28 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 15:33 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 21:44 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 15:42 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 21:46 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 16:10 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 03:52 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 23:26 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 06:42 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:23 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 19:59 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:02 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:19 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:38 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 16:02 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:03 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully --- LLM olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:36 -0600
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully --- LLM Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 18:25 +0000
Defending against libelous assessments of my work olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 12:35 -0600
Re: Defending against libelous assessments of my work Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 18:51 +0000
Re: Defending against libelous assessments of my work olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 13:13 -0600
Re: Defending against libelous assessments of my work Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 19:43 +0000
Re: Defending against libelous assessments of my work Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 20:13 +0000
Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:38 +0100
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:53 -0500
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 18:00 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-14 02:16 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? yeti <yeti@tilde.institute> - 2025-11-14 03:08 +0042
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-14 03:52 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 12:57 +0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-16 01:06 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? --- Ben olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 19:18 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-13 21:03 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-14 06:21 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-11-14 17:41 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-14 14:49 -0700
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-14 14:59 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 17:20 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 04:04 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 23:36 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 15:27 +0000
Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:29 -0600
Re: Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:04 +0000
Re: Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:16 -0600
Re: Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 21:41 +0000
Re: Kaz already admitted that the Sipser criteria have been met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 16:04 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-16 01:10 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? --- not a rehash olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 19:21 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? --- not a rehash Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-16 02:48 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? --- not a rehash olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 20:55 -0600
People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 21:01 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 12:10 +0800
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 22:41 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 23:13 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 19:56 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 19:02 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 02:21 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 21:47 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 21:49 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 04:01 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:35 -0800
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 04:29 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 22:40 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 05:03 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 22:47 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 22:48 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? --- not a rehash joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 14:39 +0000
Halt Deciders cannot report on the behavior of their caller olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:12 -0600
Kaz say that he is dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 22:19 -0600
Kaz PROVES that he is dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 22:25 -0600
Who agrees that Kaz is dumber than the Witch scene in Monty Python ? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 22:26 -0600
People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:12 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 18:06 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 12:14 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:47 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 18:16 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 12:22 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:49 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 19:02 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:05 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:11 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:42 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 21:28 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 22:24 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:02 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:49 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 19:52 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 16:28 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 11:10 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 17:40 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 15:51 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 11:04 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:23 +0000
People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- AKA Kaz olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 09:47 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- AKA Kaz Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 16:32 +0000
People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 10:48 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 17:42 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 11:48 -0600
How teach logic? [The Jokes] (Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-18 22:46 +0100
Re: How teach logic? [The Jokes] (Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:02 -0600
Enjoying some logic under a shadowy tree? (Was: How teach logic? [The Jokes]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-18 23:15 +0100
Re: Enjoying some logic under a shadowy tree? (Was: How teach logic? [The Jokes]) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:54 -0600
What did you do before 2001 ? (Was: Enjoying some logic under a shadowy tree?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-19 09:50 +0100
What are top ten books in set theory? (Re: What did you do before 2001 ?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-19 10:16 +0100
Slim Fermats Last Theorem (FLT) only for Lean4? (Was: What are top ten books in set theory?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-19 11:14 +0100
Re: How teach logic? [The Jokes] (Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:15 -0800
People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 11:41 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:58 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 16:35 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 17:48 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 17:57 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:31 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:39 -0600
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:54 +0000
Re: People that have a very shallow understanding of these things --- "reckless disregard for the truth" olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 11:23 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 6d] Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 19:13 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-12-01 19:14 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-12-01 19:45 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-01 12:05 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 14:43 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-01 12:51 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-02 10:44 -0500
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-02 09:32 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-02 13:28 -0500
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-02 13:14 -0800
human understanding of true and proof are both flawed olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 15:23 -0600
Re: human understanding of true and proof are both flawed dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-12-02 14:41 -0800
Re: human understanding of true and proof are both flawed olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 17:03 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-02 17:32 -0500
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 12:10 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Kaz Kylheku <046-301-5902@kylheku.com> - 2025-12-01 20:22 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-12-01 21:48 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-12-02 14:56 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 09:33 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-12-02 16:04 +0000
Olcott is provably correct --- no one can correctly refute this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 19:47 -0600
The quality of reviewers on USENET olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 18:11 -0600
Olcott is provably correct --- no one can correctly refute this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 19:50 -0600
Olcott is provably correct --- no one can correct refute this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 19:44 -0600
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 02:45 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? [t - 0] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-12-01 23:42 +0000
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:03 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-27 00:04 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:29 -0800
Re: Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:35 -0800
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 00:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Stop responding to Olcott by December 2025: who is in? |
| Message-ID | <20251113155854.784@kylheku.com> |
Can we get it out of our systems in just a bit over half a month? I pledge not to reply to Olcott after November 30. Likely sooner, but that's the defined date. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 18:36 -0600 |
| Subject | Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully |
| Message-ID | <10f5ti1$2hs87$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135517 |
int H(char* P);
int D()
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
H(D);
}
Answer only on the basis of performing the
actual simulation of D simulated by H.
When N statements of D are simulated by H
according to the semantics of the C programming
language can the simulated D reach its own "return"
statement final halt state for any value of N?
If I have to keep posting this every day for
the next ten years I will.
I have been asking for five minutes of someone's
time and they spend thousands of hours dodging this
over more than three years.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 00:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully |
| Message-ID | <20251113164050.449@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135519 |
On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> int H(char* P);
>
> int D()
> {
> int Halt_Status = H(D);
> if (Halt_Status)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return Halt_Status;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> H(D);
> }
>
> Answer only on the basis of performing the
> actual simulation of D simulated by H.
>
> When N statements of D are simulated by H
> according to the semantics of the C programming
> language can the simulated D reach its own "return"
> statement final halt state for any value of N?
Positively not. Provided that H returns 0 after the N steps, D reaches
its halt state in N + k steps for some k > 0. Definitely not in the N
steps simulated by H.
But anyway, D terminates in N + k steps, showing that the 0 return
is incorrect. The fact that H only makes it to N, and then returns
the wrong value, is H's problem, and has no bearing on whether D
terminates---except to the extent that D's termination depends on
H returning 0.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 18:57 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully |
| Message-ID | <10f5upq$2i4jm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135520 |
On 11/13/2025 6:45 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> int H(char* P);
>>
>> int D()
>> {
>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>> if (Halt_Status)
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> H(D);
>> }
>>
>> Answer only on the basis of performing the
>> actual simulation of D simulated by H.
>>
>> When N statements of D are simulated by H
>> according to the semantics of the C programming
>> language can the simulated D reach its own "return"
>> statement final halt state for any value of N?
>
> Positively not. Provided that H returns 0 after the N steps, D reaches
> its halt state in N + k steps for some k > 0. Definitely not in the N
> steps simulated by H.
>
void Infinite_Recursion(int N)
{
Infinite_Recursion(N);
printf("Execution never gets here!");
}
So you still don't understand that when H sees
that D calls the same function twice in sequence
with the same arguments and has no conditional
code inbetween its invocation and this function
call that this is isomorphic to infinite recursion?
> But anyway, D terminates in N + k steps, showing that the 0 return
> is incorrect. The fact that H only makes it to N, and then returns
> the wrong value, is H's problem, and has no bearing on whether D
> terminates---except to the extent that D's termination depends on
> H returning 0.
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 02:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully |
| Message-ID | <20251113182603.463@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135523 |
On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> So you still don't understand that when H sees
> that D calls the same function twice in sequence
> with the same arguments and has no conditional
> code inbetween its invocation and this function
> call that this is isomorphic to infinite recursion?
No. Obvious counterexample:
void D(void)
{
printf("calling this twice\n");
// no conditionals here
printf("calling this twice\n");
}
You're simply not able to run a simple specification through your head
to identify the ways in which it might not reflect your intent.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 20:38 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully |
| Message-ID | <10f64mo$2jch0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135531 |
On 11/13/2025 8:32 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> So you still don't understand that when H sees
>> that D calls the same function twice in sequence
>> with the same arguments and has no conditional
>> code inbetween its invocation and this function
>> call that this is isomorphic to infinite recursion?
>
> No. Obvious counterexample:
>
> void D(void)
> {
> printf("calling this twice\n");
> // no conditionals here
> printf("calling this twice\n");
> }
>
> You're simply not able to run a simple specification through your head
> to identify the ways in which it might not reflect your intent.
>
Why do you post such ridiculous nonsense?
Are you a complete jackass or only partial?
This is my life's work and you baselessly
denigrate it with stupid shit like resuming
infinite recursion will cause it to halt.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 06:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully |
| Message-ID | <20251113221708.16@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135533 |
On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/13/2025 8:32 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> So you still don't understand that when H sees
>>> that D calls the same function twice in sequence
>>> with the same arguments and has no conditional
>>> code inbetween its invocation and this function
>>> call that this is isomorphic to infinite recursion?
>>
>> No. Obvious counterexample:
>>
>> void D(void)
>> {
>> printf("calling this twice\n");
>> // no conditionals here
>> printf("calling this twice\n");
>> }
>>
>> You're simply not able to run a simple specification through your head
>> to identify the ways in which it might not reflect your intent.
>>
>
> Why do you post such ridiculous nonsense?
The above "D calls the same function (printf) twice in sequence with the
same arguments ("calling this twice\n") and has no conditional code
inbetween its invocation and this function call". It meets your
criteria; therefore it must be "isomorphic to infinite recursion".
> Are you a complete jackass or only partial?
I'm only conveying to you that the above function meets the words you
have written.
If you didn't intend that, that is your problem. I'm just the messenger.
Such a messenger wouldn't be necessary if you could think for yourself.
> This is my life's work and you baselessly
> denigrate it with stupid shit like resuming
> infinite recursion will cause it to halt.
When your life's work is being reviewed for publication, so that you can
become a renowned computer scientist, is this how you are going to
respond to your reviewers, and do you think that will work?
Your idea that when a decider abandons a simulation and returns zero,
the simuation is "totally killed" does not hold water. Mathematical
entities are never "killed".
You should be glad that we caught this problem here, before
you took your life's work to academia for publication.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 08:13 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully |
| Message-ID | <10f7des$2sraj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135545 |
On 11/14/2025 12:35 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/13/2025 8:32 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> So you still don't understand that when H sees
>>>> that D calls the same function twice in sequence
>>>> with the same arguments and has no conditional
>>>> code inbetween its invocation and this function
>>>> call that this is isomorphic to infinite recursion?
>>>
>>> No. Obvious counterexample:
>>>
>>> void D(void)
>>> {
>>> printf("calling this twice\n");
>>> // no conditionals here
>>> printf("calling this twice\n");
>>> }
>>>
>>> You're simply not able to run a simple specification through your head
>>> to identify the ways in which it might not reflect your intent.
>>>
>>
>> Why do you post such ridiculous nonsense?
>
> The above "D calls the same function (printf) twice in sequence with the
> same arguments ("calling this twice\n") and has no conditional code
> inbetween its invocation and this function call". It meets your
> criteria; therefore it must be "isomorphic to infinite recursion".
>
>> Are you a complete jackass or only partial?
>
> I'm only conveying to you that the above function meets the words you
> have written.
>
OK then I apologize.
> If you didn't intend that, that is your problem. I'm just the messenger.
>
> Such a messenger wouldn't be necessary if you could think for yourself.
>
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
I forgot a detail on line 996
Calls the same function from the same machine address
with no conditional branches in between its invocation
and this function call.
>> This is my life's work and you baselessly
>> denigrate it with stupid shit like resuming
>> infinite recursion will cause it to halt.
>
> When your life's work is being reviewed for publication, so that you can
> become a renowned computer scientist, is this how you are going to
> respond to your reviewers, and do you think that will work?
>
If they mistreated me I may be much more harsh.
> Your idea that when a decider abandons a simulation and returns zero,
> the simuation is "totally killed" does not hold water. Mathematical
> entities are never "killed".
>
The above non-halting behavior axiom is correct.
It conclusively proves the D simulated by H cannot
possibly ever reach its own simulated "return"
statement.
> You should be glad that we caught this problem here, before
> you took your life's work to academia for publication.
>
No one is going to publish my work on the halting
problem. Once they see the title of the paper they
dismiss it as ridiculous.
LLM systems can immediately verify that it is
totally correct and they prove that they have
the equivalent of human expert understanding
many different ways.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 18:01 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully |
| Message-ID | <20251114094656.700@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135563 |
On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/14/2025 12:35 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/13/2025 8:32 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> So you still don't understand that when H sees
>>>>> that D calls the same function twice in sequence
>>>>> with the same arguments and has no conditional
>>>>> code inbetween its invocation and this function
>>>>> call that this is isomorphic to infinite recursion?
>>>>
>>>> No. Obvious counterexample:
>>>>
>>>> void D(void)
>>>> {
>>>> printf("calling this twice\n");
>>>> // no conditionals here
>>>> printf("calling this twice\n");
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> You're simply not able to run a simple specification through your head
>>>> to identify the ways in which it might not reflect your intent.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why do you post such ridiculous nonsense?
>>
>> The above "D calls the same function (printf) twice in sequence with the
>> same arguments ("calling this twice\n") and has no conditional code
>> inbetween its invocation and this function call". It meets your
>> criteria; therefore it must be "isomorphic to infinite recursion".
>>
>>> Are you a complete jackass or only partial?
>>
>> I'm only conveying to you that the above function meets the words you
>> have written.
>>
>
> OK then I apologize.
My eyes must be deceiving me.
>> If you didn't intend that, that is your problem. I'm just the messenger.
>>
>> Such a messenger wouldn't be necessary if you could think for yourself.
>>
>
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> I forgot a detail on line 996
>
> Calls the same function from the same machine address
> with no conditional branches in between its invocation
> and this function call.
Now suppose that we wrongly place execution events from all
threads into a single buffer.
It can now happen like this:
void D(void)
{
(void) thread_create(D);
thread_exit(0);
}
main()
{
(void) thread_create(D);
}
The repeated call in question is D calling thread_create.
The call happens multiple times, from the same address, without
intervening conditional instructions (assuming we do not
trace system functions thread_create and thread_exit).
In our single trace buffer, it /appears/ to meet the conditions for
identifying runaway recursion.
Yet, do you not see that the threads are all terminating?
Every single new thread dispatched to D creates a new thread, which is
an asynchronous action, and then promptly terminates.
The /process/ will keep spawning new threads and fail to terminate. But
that's not the question. When we ask whether D terminates, we are not
asking whether D is surrounded by a reality which terminates.
>> Your idea that when a decider abandons a simulation and returns zero,
>> the simuation is "totally killed" does not hold water. Mathematical
>> entities are never "killed".
>>
>
> The above non-halting behavior axiom is correct.
> It conclusively proves the D simulated by H cannot
> possibly ever reach its own simulated "return"
> statement.
It doesn't. What is correct is the trick in the halting proof, that no
decider could be correct when deciding its diagonal case.
Those who are skeptical can dissect into particular complex cases to see
how they play out: i.e. to articulate in more detail why such and such a
diagonal pair case is incorrect. It is largely moot.
In your case, your logic is incorrect even for non-diagonal cases,
such as:
void DDD(void) {
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
For this non-diagonal case, your HHH could return 1 and be correct.
DDD does not behave opposite to the 1 return value; it confirms it.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 12:19 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully |
| Message-ID | <10f7rrl$3115a$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135586 |
On 11/14/2025 12:01 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2025 12:35 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/13/2025 8:32 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> So you still don't understand that when H sees
>>>>>> that D calls the same function twice in sequence
>>>>>> with the same arguments and has no conditional
>>>>>> code inbetween its invocation and this function
>>>>>> call that this is isomorphic to infinite recursion?
>>>>>
>>>>> No. Obvious counterexample:
>>>>>
>>>>> void D(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>> printf("calling this twice\n");
>>>>> // no conditionals here
>>>>> printf("calling this twice\n");
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> You're simply not able to run a simple specification through your head
>>>>> to identify the ways in which it might not reflect your intent.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why do you post such ridiculous nonsense?
>>>
>>> The above "D calls the same function (printf) twice in sequence with the
>>> same arguments ("calling this twice\n") and has no conditional code
>>> inbetween its invocation and this function call". It meets your
>>> criteria; therefore it must be "isomorphic to infinite recursion".
>>>
>>>> Are you a complete jackass or only partial?
>>>
>>> I'm only conveying to you that the above function meets the words you
>>> have written.
>>>
>>
>> OK then I apologize.
>
> My eyes must be deceiving me.
>
>>> If you didn't intend that, that is your problem. I'm just the messenger.
>>>
>>> Such a messenger wouldn't be necessary if you could think for yourself.
>>>
>>
>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>> I forgot a detail on line 996
>>
>> Calls the same function from the same machine address
>> with no conditional branches in between its invocation
>> and this function call.
>
> Now suppose that we wrongly place execution events from all
> threads into a single buffer.
>
> It can now happen like this:
>
> void D(void)
> {
> (void) thread_create(D);
> thread_exit(0);
> }
>
> main()
> {
> (void) thread_create(D);
> }
>
> The repeated call in question is D calling thread_create.
>
> The call happens multiple times, from the same address, without
> intervening conditional instructions (assuming we do not
> trace system functions thread_create and thread_exit).
>
> In our single trace buffer, it /appears/ to meet the conditions for
> identifying runaway recursion.
>
> Yet, do you not see that the threads are all terminating?
>
> Every single new thread dispatched to D creates a new thread, which is
> an asynchronous action, and then promptly terminates.
>
> The /process/ will keep spawning new threads and fail to terminate. But
> that's not the question. When we ask whether D terminates, we are not
> asking whether D is surrounded by a reality which terminates.
>
>>> Your idea that when a decider abandons a simulation and returns zero,
>>> the simuation is "totally killed" does not hold water. Mathematical
>>> entities are never "killed".
>>>
>>
>> The above non-halting behavior axiom is correct.
>> It conclusively proves the D simulated by H cannot
>> possibly ever reach its own simulated "return"
>> statement.
>
> It doesn't. What is correct is the trick in the halting proof, that no
> decider could be correct when deciding its diagonal case.
>
> Those who are skeptical can dissect into particular complex cases to see
> how they play out: i.e. to articulate in more detail why such and such a
> diagonal pair case is incorrect. It is largely moot.
>
> In your case, your logic is incorrect even for non-diagonal cases,
> such as:
>
> void DDD(void) {
> HHH(DDD);
> return;
> }
>
> For this non-diagonal case, your HHH could return 1 and be correct.
> DDD does not behave opposite to the 1 return value; it confirms it.
>
On 5/8/2025 8:30 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Assuming that HHH(DDD) "correctly simulates" DDD, and assuming it
> does nothing else, your code would be equivalent to this:
>
> void DDD(void) {
> DDD();
> return;
> }
>
> Then the return statement (which is unnecessary anyway) will never be
> reached. In practice, the program will likely crash due to a stack
> overflow, unless the compiler implements tail-call optimization, in
> which case the program might just run forever -- which also means the
> unnecessary return statement will never be reached.
>
news://text.giganews.com/87seled0zy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 18:56 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully |
| Message-ID | <20251114105301.44@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135590 |
On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/14/2025 12:01 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> Now suppose that we wrongly place execution events from all
>> threads into a single buffer.
>>
>> It can now happen like this:
>>
>> void D(void)
>> {
>> (void) thread_create(D);
>> thread_exit(0);
>> }
>>
>> main()
>> {
>> (void) thread_create(D);
>> }
>>
>> The repeated call in question is D calling thread_create.
>>
>> The call happens multiple times, from the same address, without
>> intervening conditional instructions (assuming we do not
>> trace system functions thread_create and thread_exit).
>>
>> In our single trace buffer, it /appears/ to meet the conditions for
>> identifying runaway recursion.
>>
>> Yet, do you not see that the threads are all terminating?
>>
>> Every single new thread dispatched to D creates a new thread, which is
>> an asynchronous action, and then promptly terminates.
>>
>> The /process/ will keep spawning new threads and fail to terminate. But
>> that's not the question. When we ask whether D terminates, we are not
>> asking whether D is surrounded by a reality which terminates.
> On 5/8/2025 8:30 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
[ SNIP: non-sequitur about Keith Thompson replying about a directly
recursive DDD ]
OK, so you are just dodging everything above, because you obviously
agree that all the threads are termianting in my "thread_create"
example, yet that example meets your abort criteria: the execution
traces from all the threads gathered into one buffer will produce
the conditions that thread_create is called twice from the same
address without conditional instructions in between.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 13:18 -0600 |
| Subject | Defending against libelous assessments of my work |
| Message-ID | <10f7vaj$322sp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135599 |
On 11/14/2025 12:56 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2025 12:01 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> Now suppose that we wrongly place execution events from all
>>> threads into a single buffer.
>>>
>>> It can now happen like this:
>>>
>>> void D(void)
>>> {
>>> (void) thread_create(D);
>>> thread_exit(0);
>>> }
>>>
>>> main()
>>> {
>>> (void) thread_create(D);
>>> }
>>>
>>> The repeated call in question is D calling thread_create.
>>>
>>> The call happens multiple times, from the same address, without
>>> intervening conditional instructions (assuming we do not
>>> trace system functions thread_create and thread_exit).
>>>
>>> In our single trace buffer, it /appears/ to meet the conditions for
>>> identifying runaway recursion.
>>>
>>> Yet, do you not see that the threads are all terminating?
>>>
>>> Every single new thread dispatched to D creates a new thread, which is
>>> an asynchronous action, and then promptly terminates.
>>>
>>> The /process/ will keep spawning new threads and fail to terminate. But
>>> that's not the question. When we ask whether D terminates, we are not
>>> asking whether D is surrounded by a reality which terminates.
>
>> On 5/8/2025 8:30 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> [ SNIP: non-sequitur about Keith Thompson replying about a directly
> recursive DDD ]
>
your [HHH/DDD] code would be equivalent to this:
LOOK AT THE CONTEXT Click on the link
news://text.giganews.com/87seled0zy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com
your [HHH/DDD] code would be equivalent to this:
LOOK AT THE CONTEXT Click on the link
news://text.giganews.com/87seled0zy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com
your [HHH/DDD] code would be equivalent to this:
LOOK AT THE CONTEXT Click on the link
news://text.giganews.com/87seled0zy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com
On 5/8/2025 8:30 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Assuming that HHH(DDD) "correctly simulates" DDD, and assuming it
> does nothing else, your code would be equivalent to this:
>
> void DDD(void) {
> DDD();
> return;
> }
>
> Then the return statement (which is unnecessary anyway) will never be
> reached. In practice, the program will likely crash due to a stack
> overflow, unless the compiler implements tail-call optimization, in
> which case the program might just run forever -- which also means the
> unnecessary return statement will never be reached.
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 19:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Defending against libelous assessments of my work |
| Message-ID | <20251114114342.716@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135602 |
On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/14/2025 12:56 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/14/2025 12:01 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> Now suppose that we wrongly place execution events from all
>>>> threads into a single buffer.
>>>>
>>>> It can now happen like this:
>>>>
>>>> void D(void)
>>>> {
>>>> (void) thread_create(D);
>>>> thread_exit(0);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> main()
>>>> {
>>>> (void) thread_create(D);
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> The repeated call in question is D calling thread_create.
>>>>
>>>> The call happens multiple times, from the same address, without
>>>> intervening conditional instructions (assuming we do not
>>>> trace system functions thread_create and thread_exit).
>>>>
>>>> In our single trace buffer, it /appears/ to meet the conditions for
>>>> identifying runaway recursion.
>>>>
>>>> Yet, do you not see that the threads are all terminating?
>>>>
>>>> Every single new thread dispatched to D creates a new thread, which is
>>>> an asynchronous action, and then promptly terminates.
>>>>
>>>> The /process/ will keep spawning new threads and fail to terminate. But
>>>> that's not the question. When we ask whether D terminates, we are not
>>>> asking whether D is surrounded by a reality which terminates.
>>
>>> On 5/8/2025 8:30 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> [ SNIP: non-sequitur about Keith Thompson replying about a directly
>> recursive DDD ]
>>
>
> your [HHH/DDD] code would be equivalent to this:
I do not have any HHH in my code. There is a main, D, and thread_create
and thread_exit functions supplied by the framework.
> LOOK AT THE CONTEXT Click on the link
> news://text.giganews.com/87seled0zy.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com
I do not look at external links which are not pointers into
a git repository of buildable, working code.
I'm a code-talks-bullshit-walks person; that's how I roll.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 04:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully |
| Message-ID | <10fjhru$216hh$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135523 |
On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> So you still don't understand that when H sees
> that D calls the same function twice in sequence
> with the same arguments and has no conditional
> code inbetween its invocation and this function
> call that this is isomorphic to infinite recursion?
No. Obvious counterexample:
void D(void)
{
printf("calling this twice\n");
// no conditionals here
printf("calling this twice\n");
}
You're simply not able to run a simple specification through your head
to identify the ways in which it might not reflect your intent.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-13 20:39 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully |
| Message-ID | <10f64pc$2jch0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135520 |
int H(char* P);
int D()
{
int Halt_Status = H(D);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
int main()
{
H(D);
}
Answer only on the basis of performing the
actual simulation of D simulated by H.
When N statements of D are simulated by H
according to the semantics of the C programming
language can the simulated D reach its own "return"
statement final halt state for any value of N?
If I have to keep posting this every day for
the next ten years I will.
I have been asking for five minutes of someone's
time and they spend thousands of hours dodging this
over more than three years.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 06:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully |
| Message-ID | <20251113223732.762@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135534 |
On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > When N statements of D are simulated by H > according to the semantics of the C programming > language can the simulated D reach its own "return" > statement final halt state for any value of N? I already answered: "Positively not. Provided that H returns 0 after the N steps, D reaches its halt state in N + k steps for some k > 0. Definitely not in the N steps simulated by H." Are you looking for an answer other than "no"? Other than "D does not reach the return statement in the N steps of the simulation conducted by H?" -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 08:25 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully |
| Message-ID | <10f7e4h$2t1ct$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135546 |
On 11/14/2025 12:39 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> When N statements of D are simulated by H
>> according to the semantics of the C programming
>> language can the simulated D reach its own "return"
>> statement final halt state for any value of N?
>
> I already answered:
>
> "Positively not. Provided that H returns 0 after the N steps, D reaches
> its halt state in N + k steps for some k > 0. Definitely not in the N
> steps simulated by H."
>
*Clearly you do not understand this correct non-halting axiom*
https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
shown on line 996
Calls the same function from the same machine address
with no conditional branches in between its invocation
and this function call.
if (current->Simplified_Opcode == CALL)
// CALL
if (current->Simplified_Opcode == traced->Simplified_Opcode)
// from same address
if (current->Address == traced->Address)
// to Same Function
if (current->Decode_Target == traced->Decode_Target)
// no escape
if (Count_Conditional_Branch_Instructions == 0)
{
OutputString((char*)"Local Halt Decider: "
"Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped\n\n");
return 1;
}
> Are you looking for an answer other than "no"? Other than
> "D does not reach the return statement in the N steps of the simulation
> conducted by H?"
>
With your failure to understand the above non-halting
behavior pattern axiom I must elaborate.
D simulated by H cannot possibly ever reach its
own simulated "return" statement final halt state.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 18:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully |
| Message-ID | <20251114100932.977@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135565 |
On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/14/2025 12:39 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> When N statements of D are simulated by H
>>> according to the semantics of the C programming
>>> language can the simulated D reach its own "return"
>>> statement final halt state for any value of N?
>>
>> I already answered:
>>
>> "Positively not. Provided that H returns 0 after the N steps, D reaches
>> its halt state in N + k steps for some k > 0. Definitely not in the N
>> steps simulated by H."
>>
>
> *Clearly you do not understand this correct non-halting axiom*
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
> shown on line 996
>
> Calls the same function from the same machine address
> with no conditional branches in between its invocation
> and this function call.
>
> if (current->Simplified_Opcode == CALL)
>
> // CALL
> if (current->Simplified_Opcode == traced->Simplified_Opcode)
>
> // from same address
> if (current->Address == traced->Address)
>
> // to Same Function
> if (current->Decode_Target == traced->Decode_Target)
>
> // no escape
> if (Count_Conditional_Branch_Instructions == 0)
> {
> OutputString((char*)"Local Halt Decider: "
> "Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped\n\n");
> return 1;
> }
>
>> Are you looking for an answer other than "no"? Other than
>> "D does not reach the return statement in the N steps of the simulation
>> conducted by H?"
>>
>
> With your failure to understand the above non-halting
> behavior pattern axiom I must elaborate.
>
> D simulated by H cannot possibly ever reach its
> own simulated "return" statement final halt state.
So my statement is insufficient? I claimed that D simulated
by H does not reach its return statement in the N steps that
H simulates of D, which is correct. But you want more?
Are you saying that we must be concerned with additional
simulaton steps of D beyond the N simulated by H?
But for that we have to imagine that D is somehow revived;
the simulation stepping is taken over after H.
H is no longer available after the N steps; it has returned
0 and terminated.
And you called that revival, on separate occasions, "stupid nonsense"
and "cheating".
Therefore, my original statement stands: the D simulation does not reach
D's return statement in the N steps simulated by H, and that's
all there is to it.
That does not confirm D to be non-terminating, but it would be
cheating/stupid/blasphemous to think about D having a "life after H",
and offensive to Peter Olcott. Since D didn't terminate while
simulated by H, and considering D's behavior after H is blasphemy, we
may not conclude that D is terminating or nonterminating by
blasphemously reasoning about its post-H simulation behavior.
What we need is another religious decree which proclaims that
D is nonterminating in spite of having no life after H.
A simulation of D after H is like a continued "life on Earth". But when
H walks away from D, D dies and ascends to heaven, where it enjoys
eternal life (== nontermination). Its "life on Earth" has ended.
Those who trace a continued Earthly life of D are atheists spreading a
lie who will be condemned to Hell (if there is such a place) you've
/literally/ said exactly that yourself on a number of occasions now.
It all makes sense as religious doctrine built on arbitrary
proclamations that must be accepted and obeyed.
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 12:31 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully |
| Message-ID | <10f7si7$31aes$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135593 |
On 11/14/2025 12:22 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/14/2025 12:39 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> When N statements of D are simulated by H
>>>> according to the semantics of the C programming
>>>> language can the simulated D reach its own "return"
>>>> statement final halt state for any value of N?
>>>
>>> I already answered:
>>>
>>> "Positively not. Provided that H returns 0 after the N steps, D reaches
>>> its halt state in N + k steps for some k > 0. Definitely not in the N
>>> steps simulated by H."
>>>
>>
>> *Clearly you do not understand this correct non-halting axiom*
>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>> shown on line 996
>>
>> Calls the same function from the same machine address
>> with no conditional branches in between its invocation
>> and this function call.
>>
>> if (current->Simplified_Opcode == CALL)
>>
>> // CALL
>> if (current->Simplified_Opcode == traced->Simplified_Opcode)
>>
>> // from same address
>> if (current->Address == traced->Address)
>>
>> // to Same Function
>> if (current->Decode_Target == traced->Decode_Target)
>>
>> // no escape
>> if (Count_Conditional_Branch_Instructions == 0)
>> {
>> OutputString((char*)"Local Halt Decider: "
>> "Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped\n\n");
>> return 1;
>> }
>>
>>> Are you looking for an answer other than "no"? Other than
>>> "D does not reach the return statement in the N steps of the simulation
>>> conducted by H?"
>>>
>>
>> With your failure to understand the above non-halting
>> behavior pattern axiom I must elaborate.
>>
>> D simulated by H cannot possibly ever reach its
>> own simulated "return" statement final halt state.
>
> So my statement is insufficient? I claimed that D simulated
> by H does not reach its return statement in the N steps that
> H simulates of D, which is correct. But you want more?
>
My point is that input D specifies non-halting
behavior to termination analyzer H when the
measure of the behavior of input D to termination
analyzer H is D simulated by H cannot possibly
reach its own "return" statement.
When we get to this point then after three years of
despicably dishonest dodges we can finally get to
the second step of my proof.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-14 18:48 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Will keep posting this every day until someone answers truthfully |
| Message-ID | <20251114104210.267@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #135595 |
On 2025-11-14, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/14/2025 12:22 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> So my statement is insufficient? I claimed that D simulated >> by H does not reach its return statement in the N steps that >> H simulates of D, which is correct. But you want more? >> > > My point is that input D specifies non-halting > behavior to termination analyzer H when the > measure of the behavior of input D to termination > analyzer H is D simulated by H cannot possibly > reach its own "return" statement. D simulated to H doesn't reach its return statement while simulated by H, and /it is forbidden to investigate/ whether the finite bit string representing the abandoned simulation state specifies a remaining simulation in which D terminates. In addition for that being forbidden, D is /declared/ to be nonterminating. I.e. you require your interlocutors to accept the proclamation that D is nonterminating, and that investigation into the final simulation state left behind by H is off limits. -- TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 9 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web