Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #135431 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-12 08:45 -0600 |
| Last post | 2025-12-07 13:17 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 449 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 08:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 11:57 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-12 18:12 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 12:31 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-12 18:46 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 13:11 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 13:33 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 20:17 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 14:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:25 +0000
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:34 -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 02:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 19:49 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2025-11-13 08:54 +0100
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 00:21 -0800
How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-13 11:18 +0100
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> - 2025-11-13 12:14 +0000
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 07:06 -0800
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:28 -0600
Re: How to handle pathological cases (was Re: ...) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:15 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:22 -0600
Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-11-13 12:36 +0000
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) Janis Papanagnou <janis_papanagnou+ng@hotmail.com> - 2025-11-13 13:49 +0100
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2025-11-13 12:55 +0000
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:26 -0600
Re: Any article that contains the string "olcott" is junk (Was: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:24 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:53 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-14 20:59 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-12 20:49 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 11:18 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 10:06 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 19:04 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 15:18 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 10:53 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:33 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 14:56 +0000
Libelous statements that meet the burden of proof of reckless disregard of the truth olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:33 -0600
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 15:52 +0000
Libelous statements that meet the burden of proof of reckless disregard of the truth olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 10:03 -0600
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-14 09:05 -0800
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 17:52 +0000
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 12:16 -0600
Re: Statements that are true, with full regard for the truth dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-14 12:59 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 11:45 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-14 20:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:30 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-14 20:43 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 14:58 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-15 11:59 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 13:31 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 08:49 +0000
"true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:01 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 22:20 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 20:08 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 13:21 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:46 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 17:00 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 11:04 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 17:29 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 11:36 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 21:11 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:23 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 23:38 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:45 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 00:01 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:34 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 13:45 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 09:15 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 02:28 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:51 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 13:16 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 02:23 +0000
eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 11:41 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:44 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 20:34 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 14:45 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:24 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:30 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:20 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 15:03 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:35 -0600
polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 16:06 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:31 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 19:43 -0500
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 18:46 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 03:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 19:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 19:36 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 21:18 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-18 17:40 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:46 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 17:17 +0000
help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 10:43 -0800
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:48 +0000
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 11:19 -0800
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 19:47 +0000
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox --- TXR and AWK olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:49 -0600
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 21:01 -0800
Re: help i'm stuck in a liar's paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:18 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 13:03 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 03:45 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is wrong olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 22:07 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 17:41 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:37 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 20:55 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 15:05 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 21:41 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:12 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 04:42 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 22:57 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 13:22 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 22:10 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 14:56 -0800
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 17:24 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 15:27 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 02:42 +0000
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 20:50 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 19:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 04:12 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 04:13 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 20:23 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 22:41 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 05:04 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 09:19 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 17:29 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 12:15 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 18:22 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 19:18 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:33 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 22:05 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-21 23:14 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-22 05:39 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:05 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 07:00 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:26 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 19:29 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 13:44 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 20:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 14:13 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:09 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-23 04:20 +0000
Glossary of names in my termination analyzer system olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 22:50 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-21 22:12 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 21:56 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 02:54 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 23:06 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:07 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:42 -0800
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:10 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 19:36 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect --- is libel against him olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 20:00 -0600
polcott agrees that the halting problem is incorrect in this way olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:47 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-18 23:47 +0000
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 00:13 +0000
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-19 00:57 +0000
polcott has shwn that the halting problem is incorrect olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 18:17 -0600
Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 18:24 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 01:06 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 01:07 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:41 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:20 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:49 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 19:18 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:40 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:44 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 01:56 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 20:19 -0600
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 13:25 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 22:05 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 15:43 -0800
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 21:03 +0000
Re: Liars try to get away with DD simulated by HHH halts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:13 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 10:26 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-19 19:42 +0000
polcott agrees the halting problem is incorrect --- quit lying about what I say olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:45 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 12:51 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2025-11-19 16:04 -0700
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 17:43 -0600
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 00:04 +0000
homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:08 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 02:29 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:49 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 02:58 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 19:53 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 19:55 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 12:03 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 20:14 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 20:24 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 07:22 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-20 20:53 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-20 21:09 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 13:35 -0800
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 22:06 +0000
Re: homework assignment for the group: multi-decider paradox dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 13:50 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 18:10 -0800
Re: polcott agrees with the halting problem olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:37 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:28 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 13:33 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:44 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:49 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:39 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 23:21 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 23:36 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 17:43 -0600
Re: eric is not a crank "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:06 -0800
Re: eric is not a crank Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:24 +0000
Re: eric is not a crank olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 17:40 -0600
the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:22 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:48 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 13:36 +0000
the halting problem is founded in computer science not math olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 08:50 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science not math Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 20:02 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science not math olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 14:12 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-18 13:04 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:36 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-19 23:36 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-19 17:53 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 00:01 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 00:01 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:11 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 20:05 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:15 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-20 23:15 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 23:38 -0800
Making True(Language L, Expression E) always computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 09:09 -0600
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-22 03:02 +0000
halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-21 21:34 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 04:26 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 06:08 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:16 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 16:45 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 11:14 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 17:44 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 11:48 -0600
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:05 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:13 +0000
Re: halting problem counter example H/D pair is the Liar Paradox Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:11 +0000
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-21 20:14 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-19 18:25 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 07:46 +0000
"great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 02:24 -0800
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 14:41 +0000
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-20 12:03 -0800
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 20:39 +0000
Re: "great now there's n+1 formal systems" reports dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-21 10:59 -0800
Re: the halting problem is founded in computer science Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-11-20 23:17 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 21:41 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 13:50 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 22:15 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 22:45 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 22:54 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:05 +0000
The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:59 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:22 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 06:40 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 01:03 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:36 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 18:51 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 14:22 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 20:55 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 21:24 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-20 04:46 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 22:58 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 08:06 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 08:12 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 10:15 -0500
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-22 18:42 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 13:06 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-20 20:49 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:50 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 22:05 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-19 02:47 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 21:04 -0600
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-21 01:14 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-21 01:28 +0000
Re: The halting problem is merely the Liar Paradox in disguise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-20 22:00 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:59 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 15:09 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 23:31 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:39 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-17 23:48 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 16:00 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:07 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 00:19 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 18:58 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:40 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 11:02 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:36 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 06:48 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 22:41 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 15:10 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:33 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 16:04 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 18:26 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 02:16 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-17 19:02 -0800
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 21:43 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 12:57 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-18 12:52 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 16:54 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 20:51 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 17:20 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 23:44 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 22:44 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 06:40 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 08:04 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 21:58 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:56 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 17:04 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:52 -0600
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 16:01 +0000
Re: "true on the basis of meaning" AKA Analytic(Olcott) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 10:29 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 18:55 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 21:43 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-17 04:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 13:24 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 09:38 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:59 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 05:28 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:44 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 19:37 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-16 09:32 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 13:11 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 13:03 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 14:39 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-15 06:43 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 15:29 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 09:41 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 16:32 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:03 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 17:24 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:38 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 18:06 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:50 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 03:30 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 13:55 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 04:04 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:14 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 04:25 +0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 21:55 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 16:18 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 13:05 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-15 11:56 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 09:51 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 16:35 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:05 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 17:27 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 11:40 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 18:08 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 12:53 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 20:31 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 14:55 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 22:02 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-15 22:54 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-15 23:30 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 17:32 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 00:10 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 18:44 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:41 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 17:22 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-16 01:07 +0000
Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 19:29 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-16 19:11 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:52 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 01:45 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 20:13 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 03:41 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 21:50 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having infinite loops --- G ↔ ¬Prov(⌜G⌝) Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-17 04:04 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-16 10:55 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 14:37 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-17 11:11 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:44 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-18 11:26 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 09:51 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-19 11:53 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 07:02 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 18:13 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-20 10:08 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 13:27 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 18:39 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 12:52 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:36 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:57 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 03:22 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:43 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 08:44 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:38 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 18:57 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 15:45 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 00:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 18:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 01:02 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:29 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 13:09 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 07:42 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 01:14 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 20:33 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 10:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:22 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:32 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:38 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-13 04:50 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 23:00 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 00:16 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 11:05 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 10:00 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:01 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:42 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 12:30 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:27 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:46 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:07 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 21:00 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-12-01 14:45 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:18 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:22 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 00:39 -0800
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:20 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:49 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 12:27 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:45 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:22 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 12:28 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 00:56 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:09 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-14 13:20 +0000
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 08:49 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 12:17 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:20 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:25 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 10:17 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:48 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:40 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:21 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 11:03 -0500
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 12:31 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 12:01 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-01 12:18 +0200
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 06:45 -0600
Re: Rejecting expressions of formal language having pathological self-reference Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 13:17 +0200
Page 7 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 23 Next page →
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 19:10 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <10fol7e$3d3hq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136213 |
On 11/20/2025 6:50 PM, olcott wrote: [...] When will you halt?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-21 04:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <20251120200628.743@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136213 |
On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2025 4:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/19/2025 10:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/19/2025 3:41 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The sound basis of this reasoning is the
>>>>>>>>> semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... and, note,
>>>>>>> that you dishonestly erased most of the context
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's just the same pseudo-code snppet you've posted
>>>>>> hundreds of times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea is that I will keep repeating this
>>>>> until you pay attention
>>>>>
>>>>> int DD()
>>>>> {
>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>> HHH(DD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've given ths an incredible amount of attention.
>>>>
>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>> that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>
>>>> If HHH(DD) returns 0, it's this;
>>>>
>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>> - such that DD terminates.
>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>> - such that DD terminates.
>>>>
>>>> Adding another level:
>>>>
>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>> - that ...
>>>> - that ...
>>>> - that ...
>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>
>>> Such a jackass trying to get away with saying
>>
>> All you have is personal attacks, rather than reasoning
>> and following code and execution traces.
>>
>>> that simulated inputs that cannot possibly stop
>>> running unless aborted terminate normally.
>>
>> Self-assurance without a shred of support.
>>
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>> stop running unless aborted then...
>>
>> I also agreed to these words, at least four times.
>>
>
> I doubt this. Prove it with a
> Time/Date stamp and a Message ID.
Go to Google Groups and search.
> It must be actual agreement with those
> actual words or you are still a liar.
From the perspective of the aborting H, if we consider how the behavior
would change if H were redesigned not to abort, we have to conclude
that the D test case would thereby be redesigned not to terminate. And
furthermore that H(D) wouldn't return, so the revised D doesn't even
reach the "do-the-opposite" code. (Of course, those are a different H
and D that must be given different names.)
I don't agree with what you are reading into that; but the statement
Sipser supposedly agreed wth doesn't actually read anything into
anything.
--
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 | 2025-11-21 04:13 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <10foou6$3duku$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136213 |
On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2025 4:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/19/2025 10:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/19/2025 3:41 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The sound basis of this reasoning is the
>>>>>>>>> semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ... and, note,
>>>>>>> that you dishonestly erased most of the context
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's just the same pseudo-code snppet you've posted
>>>>>> hundreds of times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The idea is that I will keep repeating this
>>>>> until you pay attention
>>>>>
>>>>> int DD()
>>>>> {
>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>> HHH(DD);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've given ths an incredible amount of attention.
>>>>
>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>> that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>
>>>> If HHH(DD) returns 0, it's this;
>>>>
>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>> - such that DD terminates.
>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>> - such that DD terminates.
>>>>
>>>> Adding another level:
>>>>
>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>> - that ...
>>>> - that ...
>>>> - that ...
>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>
>>> Such a jackass trying to get away with saying
>>
>> All you have is personal attacks, rather than reasoning
>> and following code and execution traces.
>>
>>> that simulated inputs that cannot possibly stop
>>> running unless aborted terminate normally.
>>
>> Self-assurance without a shred of support.
>>
>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>> stop running unless aborted then...
>>
>> I also agreed to these words, at least four times.
>>
>
> I doubt this. Prove it with a
> Time/Date stamp and a Message ID.
Go to Google Groups and search.
> It must be actual agreement with those
> actual words or you are still a liar.
From the perspective of the aborting H, if we consider how the behavior
would change if H were redesigned not to abort, we have to conclude
that the D test case would thereby be redesigned not to terminate. And
furthermore that H(D) wouldn't return, so the revised D doesn't even
reach the "do-the-opposite" code. (Of course, those are a different H
and D that must be given different names.)
I don't agree with what you are reading into that; but the statement
Sipser supposedly agreed wth doesn't actually read anything into
anything.
[I see you annoyingly added the comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++ newsgroups
to the crossposts. I didn't catch it, but I'm double checking and
superseding my articles to remove that.]
--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 20:23 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <10fopg6$3du2b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136216 |
On 11/20/2025 8:13 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2025 4:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/19/2025 10:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/19/2025 3:41 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The sound basis of this reasoning is the
>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ... and, note,
>>>>>>>> that you dishonestly erased most of the context
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's just the same pseudo-code snppet you've posted
>>>>>>> hundreds of times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea is that I will keep repeating this
>>>>>> until you pay attention
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> HHH(DD);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've given ths an incredible amount of attention.
>>>>>
>>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>>> that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>>
>>>>> If HHH(DD) returns 0, it's this;
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>>> - such that DD terminates.
>>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>>> - such that DD terminates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adding another level:
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>> - that ...
>>>>> - that ...
>>>>> - that ...
>>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>>
>>>> Such a jackass trying to get away with saying
>>>
>>> All you have is personal attacks, rather than reasoning
>>> and following code and execution traces.
>>>
>>>> that simulated inputs that cannot possibly stop
>>>> running unless aborted terminate normally.
>>>
>>> Self-assurance without a shred of support.
>>>
>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>> stop running unless aborted then...
>>>
>>> I also agreed to these words, at least four times.
>>>
>>
>> I doubt this. Prove it with a
>> Time/Date stamp and a Message ID.
>
> Go to Google Groups and search.
>
>> It must be actual agreement with those
>> actual words or you are still a liar.
>
> From the perspective of the aborting H, if we consider how the behavior
> would change if H were redesigned not to abort, we have to conclude
> that the D test case would thereby be redesigned not to terminate. And
> furthermore that H(D) wouldn't return, so the revised D doesn't even
> reach the "do-the-opposite" code. (Of course, those are a different H
> and D that must be given different names.)
>
> I don't agree with what you are reading into that; but the statement
> Sipser supposedly agreed wth doesn't actually read anything into
> anything.
>
> [I see you annoyingly added the comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++ newsgroups
> to the crossposts. I didn't catch it, but I'm double checking and
> superseding my articles to remove that.]
>
I can see it now. We halt wrt PO, early Christmas! Then Olcott can talk
to itself?
(Limahl - Never Ending Story (Official Music Video))
https://youtu.be/2WN0T-Ee3q4?list=RDusADINi17cI
lol. We halt... PO goes really nuts?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 22:41 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <10foqhr$3eb6d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136216 |
On 11/20/2025 10:13 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2025 4:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/19/2025 10:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/19/2025 3:41 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The sound basis of this reasoning is the
>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ... and, note,
>>>>>>>> that you dishonestly erased most of the context
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's just the same pseudo-code snppet you've posted
>>>>>>> hundreds of times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The idea is that I will keep repeating this
>>>>>> until you pay attention
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> HHH(DD);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've given ths an incredible amount of attention.
>>>>>
>>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>>> that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>>
>>>>> If HHH(DD) returns 0, it's this;
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>>> - such that DD terminates.
>>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>>> - such that DD terminates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Adding another level:
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>> - that ...
>>>>> - that ...
>>>>> - that ...
>>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>>
>>>> Such a jackass trying to get away with saying
>>>
>>> All you have is personal attacks, rather than reasoning
>>> and following code and execution traces.
>>>
>>>> that simulated inputs that cannot possibly stop
>>>> running unless aborted terminate normally.
>>>
>>> Self-assurance without a shred of support.
>>>
>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>> stop running unless aborted then...
>>>
>>> I also agreed to these words, at least four times.
>>>
>>
>> I doubt this. Prove it with a
>> Time/Date stamp and a Message ID.
>
> Go to Google Groups and search.
>
>> It must be actual agreement with those
>> actual words or you are still a liar.
>
> From the perspective of the aborting H, if we consider how the behavior
> would change if H were redesigned not to abort, we have to conclude
> that the D test case would thereby be redesigned not to terminate. And
> furthermore that H(D) wouldn't return, so the revised D doesn't even
> reach the "do-the-opposite" code. (Of course, those are a different H
> and D that must be given different names.)
>
It proves that the input to H(D) specifies
non-halting behavior.
Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from
their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
state on the basis that this [finite string] input
specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic
property.
We stay in the C/C++ groups until we have
complete mutual agreement on the C. As soon
as that occurs we leave these groups.
> I don't agree with what you are reading into that; but the statement
> Sipser supposedly agreed wth doesn't actually read anything into
> anything.
>
> [I see you annoyingly added the comp.lang.c and comp.lang.c++ newsgroups
> to the crossposts. I didn't catch it, but I'm double checking and
> superseding my articles to remove that.]
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-21 05:04 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <20251120204649.502@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136218 |
On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/20/2025 10:13 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/20/2025 4:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/19/2025 10:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/19/2025 3:41 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The sound basis of this reasoning is the
>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ... and, note,
>>>>>>>>> that you dishonestly erased most of the context
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's just the same pseudo-code snppet you've posted
>>>>>>>> hundreds of times.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The idea is that I will keep repeating this
>>>>>>> until you pay attention
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> HHH(DD);
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've given ths an incredible amount of attention.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>>>> that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If HHH(DD) returns 0, it's this;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>>>> - such that DD terminates.
>>>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>>>> - such that DD terminates.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Adding another level:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>>> - that ...
>>>>>> - that ...
>>>>>> - that ...
>>>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>>>
>>>>> Such a jackass trying to get away with saying
>>>>
>>>> All you have is personal attacks, rather than reasoning
>>>> and following code and execution traces.
>>>>
>>>>> that simulated inputs that cannot possibly stop
>>>>> running unless aborted terminate normally.
>>>>
>>>> Self-assurance without a shred of support.
>>>>
>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>> stop running unless aborted then...
>>>>
>>>> I also agreed to these words, at least four times.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I doubt this. Prove it with a
>>> Time/Date stamp and a Message ID.
>>
>> Go to Google Groups and search.
>>
>
>>> It must be actual agreement with those
>>> actual words or you are still a liar.
>>
>> From the perspective of the aborting H, if we consider how the behavior
>> would change if H were redesigned not to abort, we have to conclude
>> that the D test case would thereby be redesigned not to terminate. And
>> furthermore that H(D) wouldn't return, so the revised D doesn't even
>> reach the "do-the-opposite" code. (Of course, those are a different H
>> and D that must be given different names.)
>>
>
> It proves that the input to H(D) specifies
> non-halting behavior.
No, it states that D would be non-halting in the hypothetical situtation
in whch H neglected to abort, and just kept simulating.
That hypothetical situation does not apply to H; H is aborting with a
zero/false, and its D is terminating.
> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from
> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic
> property.
Equally importantly, deciders must answer about the input they
are given, and not about some hypothetical situation involving
a replacement version of themselves and their input.
If a decider works with some hypothetical situation instead
of the actual one, and the answer does not agree with the
actual one, then it's just wrong.
If you order a hamburger, and the server hypothesizes about
a parallel universe in which you like chicken nuggests instead,
they simply messed up your order.
> We stay in the C/C++ groups until we have
> complete mutual agreement on the C.
I wrote some C++ in your x86utm framework; you refused to look at it.
Remember?
I've looked at quite a bit of your halting-related C++; you've looked
at zero of mine.
--
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 | 2025-11-21 09:19 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <10fpvu7$3p6d2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136219 |
On 11/20/2025 11:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/20/2025 10:13 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/20/2025 4:10 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/19/2025 10:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/19/2025 3:41 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-19, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> The sound basis of this reasoning is the
>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics of the C programming language.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ... and, note,
>>>>>>>>>> that you dishonestly erased most of the context
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's just the same pseudo-code snppet you've posted
>>>>>>>>> hundreds of times.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The idea is that I will keep repeating this
>>>>>>>> until you pay attention
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've given ths an incredible amount of attention.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>>>>> that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If HHH(DD) returns 0, it's this;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>>>>> - such that DD terminates.
>>>>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>>>>> - such that DD terminates.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adding another level:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>>>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>>>> - that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>>>>>> - that ...
>>>>>>> - that ...
>>>>>>> - that ...
>>>>>>> - but only partially, returning 0.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Such a jackass trying to get away with saying
>>>>>
>>>>> All you have is personal attacks, rather than reasoning
>>>>> and following code and execution traces.
>>>>>
>>>>>> that simulated inputs that cannot possibly stop
>>>>>> running unless aborted terminate normally.
>>>>>
>>>>> Self-assurance without a shred of support.
>>>>>
>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then...
>>>>>
>>>>> I also agreed to these words, at least four times.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I doubt this. Prove it with a
>>>> Time/Date stamp and a Message ID.
>>>
>>> Go to Google Groups and search.
>>>
>>
>>>> It must be actual agreement with those
>>>> actual words or you are still a liar.
>>>
>>> From the perspective of the aborting H, if we consider how the behavior
>>> would change if H were redesigned not to abort, we have to conclude
>>> that the D test case would thereby be redesigned not to terminate. And
>>> furthermore that H(D) wouldn't return, so the revised D doesn't even
>>> reach the "do-the-opposite" code. (Of course, those are a different H
>>> and D that must be given different names.)
>>>
>>
>> It proves that the input to H(D) specifies
>> non-halting behavior.
>
> No, it states that D would be non-halting in the hypothetical situtation
> in whch H neglected to abort, and just kept simulating.
>
HHH has no idea that DD is calling itself, HHH
can only see that DD is calling the same function
twice in sequence with no conditional branch in
DD to stop this from infinitely repeating.
In other words:
HHH correctly simulates its input DD
until HHH correctly determines that its simulated DD would never
stop running unless aborted...
> That hypothetical situation does not apply to H; H is aborting with a
> zero/false, and its D is terminating.
>
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
cannot possibly stop running unless aborted proving
the simulated DD is non-halting
the simulated DD is non-halting
the simulated DD is non-halting
the simulated DD is non-halting
the simulated DD is non-halting
the simulated DD is non-halting
the simulated DD is non-halting
the simulated DD is non-halting
the simulated DD is non-halting
the simulated DD is non-halting
the simulated DD is non-halting
the simulated DD is non-halting
I have to repeat that many times to get people
to focus on the fact that it is
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
*and not the*
DD executed from main
DD executed from main
DD executed from main
DD executed from main
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
*and not the*
DD executed from main
DD executed from main
DD executed from main
DD executed from main
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
The simulated DD
*and not the*
DD executed from main
DD executed from main
DD executed from main
DD executed from main
That we are talking about.
>> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from
>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
>> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic
>> property.
>
> Equally importantly, deciders must answer about the input they
> are given, and not about some hypothetical situation involving
> a replacement version of themselves and their input.
>
> If a decider works with some hypothetical situation instead
> of the actual one, and the answer does not agree with the
> actual one, then it's just wrong.
>
> If you order a hamburger, and the server hypothesizes about
> a parallel universe in which you like chicken nuggests instead,
> they simply messed up your order.
>
>> We stay in the C/C++ groups until we have
>> complete mutual agreement on the C.
>
> I wrote some C++ in your x86utm framework; you refused to look at it.
>
> Remember?
>
> I've looked at quite a bit of your halting-related C++; you've looked
> at zero of mine.
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-21 17:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <20251121090816.391@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136225 |
On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/20/2025 11:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> No, it states that D would be non-halting in the hypothetical situtation >> in whch H neglected to abort, and just kept simulating. >> > > HHH has no idea that DD is calling itself, HHH > can only see that DD is calling the same function > twice in sequence with no conditional branch in > DD to stop this from infinitely repeating. It's been explained to you that ths doesn't happen. Any given invocation of DD makes only one call to HHH (as anyone can plainly see from its simple code of several lines!) That call to HHH starts a new simulation in which a /new instance/ of DD calls HHH. But that simulation is an thread-like independent control flow which HHH can discontinue simulating; HHH is not waiting for it to termnate. You simply do not have a grasp on the fine points of concurrent programming with multiple thread-like scheduled entities. -- 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 | 2025-11-21 12:15 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <10fqa78$3sq73$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136228 |
On 11/21/2025 11:29 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/20/2025 11:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> No, it states that D would be non-halting in the hypothetical situtation
>>> in whch H neglected to abort, and just kept simulating.
>>>
>>
>> HHH has no idea that DD is calling itself, HHH
>> can only see that DD is calling the same function
>> twice in sequence with no conditional branch in
>> DD to stop this from infinitely repeating.
>
> It's been explained to you that ths doesn't happen.
>
> Any given invocation of DD makes only one call to HHH
> (as anyone can plainly see from its simple code of several
> lines!)
>
Those double-talk weasel words count as lying within
the context of this.
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>> stop running unless aborted then...
>
> I also agreed to these words, at least four times.
>
The above proves that the input to H(D) does specify
non-halting behavior.
Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from
their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
state on the basis that this [finite string] input
specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic
property.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-21 18:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <20251121102105.727@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136229 |
On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/21/2025 11:29 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2025 11:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> No, it states that D would be non-halting in the hypothetical situtation
>>>> in whch H neglected to abort, and just kept simulating.
>>>>
>>>
>>> HHH has no idea that DD is calling itself, HHH
>>> can only see that DD is calling the same function
>>> twice in sequence with no conditional branch in
>>> DD to stop this from infinitely repeating.
>>
>> It's been explained to you that ths doesn't happen.
>>
>> Any given invocation of DD makes only one call to HHH
>> (as anyone can plainly see from its simple code of several
>> lines!)
>>
>
> Those double-talk weasel words count as lying within
> the context of this.
>
> int DD()
> {
> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
There, that is one call. DD calls HHH exactly once.
HHH does not anything that could call HHH again, including DD.
--
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 | 2025-11-21 19:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <20251121111117.878@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136229 |
On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/21/2025 11:29 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2025 11:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> No, it states that D would be non-halting in the hypothetical situtation
>>>> in whch H neglected to abort, and just kept simulating.
>>>>
>>>
>>> HHH has no idea that DD is calling itself, HHH
>>> can only see that DD is calling the same function
>>> twice in sequence with no conditional branch in
>>> DD to stop this from infinitely repeating.
>>
>> It's been explained to you that ths doesn't happen.
>>
>> Any given invocation of DD makes only one call to HHH
>> (as anyone can plainly see from its simple code of several
>> lines!)
>>
>
> Those double-talk weasel words count as lying within
> the context of this.
>
> int DD()
> {
> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
> if (Halt_Status)
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return Halt_Status;
> }
>
> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> > On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
> >> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
> >> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
> >> stop running unless aborted then...
> >
> > I also agreed to these words, at least four times.
> >
>
> The above proves that the input to H(D) does specify
> non-halting behavior.
All you are communicating is that you have no idea what "prove" means;
where the bar is at for proving something.
> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from
> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
Yes, /a/ mapping. There is only one mapping. The mapping is
the abstract halting function.
There are no deciders which compute that mapping, only partial
deciders.
> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic
> property.
The mapping is a function. It assigns /one/ value to each
domain element. The finite representation D is a domain element
which maps to one truth value.
Yet you claim that HHH1(DD) == 1 and HHH(DD) == 0 are both
right.
That cannot be; the mapping doesn't support it.
It cannot be that two deciders are following a different mapping
such that both can be correct when they contradict each other.
The mapping they must be calculating must correspond to the
halting function. If the disagree, one of the two is not following
the halting functions and is therefore incorrect.
--
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 | 2025-11-21 13:33 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <10fqeqj$3ucjt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136232 |
On 11/21/2025 1:18 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/21/2025 11:29 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/20/2025 11:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> No, it states that D would be non-halting in the hypothetical situtation
>>>>> in whch H neglected to abort, and just kept simulating.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> HHH has no idea that DD is calling itself, HHH
>>>> can only see that DD is calling the same function
>>>> twice in sequence with no conditional branch in
>>>> DD to stop this from infinitely repeating.
>>>
>>> It's been explained to you that ths doesn't happen.
>>>
>>> Any given invocation of DD makes only one call to HHH
>>> (as anyone can plainly see from its simple code of several
>>> lines!)
>>>
>>
>> Those double-talk weasel words count as lying within
>> the context of this.
>>
>> int DD()
>> {
>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>> if (Halt_Status)
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> return Halt_Status;
>> }
>>
>> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>> stop running unless aborted then...
>>>
>>> I also agreed to these words, at least four times.
>>>
>>
>> The above proves that the input to H(D) does specify
>> non-halting behavior.
>
> All you are communicating is that you have no idea what "prove" means;
> where the bar is at for proving something.
>
A proof is ultimately any conclusion derived by
applying correct semantic entailment to a
self-evidently true basis.
The semantics of C and the above function are the
self-evidently true basis.
The sequence of steps of DD simulated by HHH according
the the semantics of C is the semantic entailment.
This derives the necessary consequence that DD
simulated by HHH would never stop running unless
aborted.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-21 22:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <20251121135849.266@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136233 |
On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/21/2025 1:18 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2025 11:29 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/20/2025 11:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> No, it states that D would be non-halting in the hypothetical situtation
>>>>>> in whch H neglected to abort, and just kept simulating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> HHH has no idea that DD is calling itself, HHH
>>>>> can only see that DD is calling the same function
>>>>> twice in sequence with no conditional branch in
>>>>> DD to stop this from infinitely repeating.
>>>>
>>>> It's been explained to you that ths doesn't happen.
>>>>
>>>> Any given invocation of DD makes only one call to HHH
>>>> (as anyone can plainly see from its simple code of several
>>>> lines!)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Those double-talk weasel words count as lying within
>>> the context of this.
>>>
>>> int DD()
>>> {
>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>> return Halt_Status;
>>> }
>>>
>>> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>> stop running unless aborted then...
>>>>
>>>> I also agreed to these words, at least four times.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The above proves that the input to H(D) does specify
>>> non-halting behavior.
>>
>> All you are communicating is that you have no idea what "prove" means;
>> where the bar is at for proving something.
>>
>
> A proof is ultimately any conclusion derived by
> applying correct semantic entailment to a
> self-evidently true basis.
You've not even began to do anythng of this sort.
> The semantics of C and the above function are the
> self-evidently true basis.
The above function is incomplete. You have to show all of
HHHH, and how exactly it simulates DD, and how it comes to
the conclusion that it should stop doing that and return 0.
Those can all be incorrect, without the "semantics of C"
being violated!
Do you not know that a program can be buggy? Or entirely the wrong
program written to the wrong requirements? Yet completely adhere to the
semantics of its programming language (whch means never doing anything
undefined?)
You've only been a coding technician and not an actual engineer,
that's why you don't know basics like this.
--
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 <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-21 23:14 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <K8Sdna3CNNVe27z0nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #136238 |
On 11/21/2025 4:05 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/21/2025 1:18 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2025 11:29 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/20/2025 11:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> No, it states that D would be non-halting in the hypothetical situtation
>>>>>>> in whch H neglected to abort, and just kept simulating.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HHH has no idea that DD is calling itself, HHH
>>>>>> can only see that DD is calling the same function
>>>>>> twice in sequence with no conditional branch in
>>>>>> DD to stop this from infinitely repeating.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's been explained to you that ths doesn't happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any given invocation of DD makes only one call to HHH
>>>>> (as anyone can plainly see from its simple code of several
>>>>> lines!)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Those double-talk weasel words count as lying within
>>>> the context of this.
>>>>
>>>> int DD()
>>>> {
>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then...
>>>>>
>>>>> I also agreed to these words, at least four times.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The above proves that the input to H(D) does specify
>>>> non-halting behavior.
>>>
>>> All you are communicating is that you have no idea what "prove" means;
>>> where the bar is at for proving something.
>>>
>>
>> A proof is ultimately any conclusion derived by
>> applying correct semantic entailment to a
>> self-evidently true basis.
>
> You've not even began to do anythng of this sort.
>
>> The semantics of C and the above function are the
>> self-evidently true basis.
>
> The above function is incomplete. You have to show all of
> HHHH, and how exactly it simulates DD, and how it comes to
> the conclusion that it should stop doing that and return 0.
>
The combination of the semantics of C
and the source of the function DD provide
all the information needed to specify all
of the details of the steps of DD simulated
by HHH.
> Those can all be incorrect, without the "semantics of C"
> being violated!
>
> Do you not know that a program can be buggy? Or entirely the wrong
> program written to the wrong requirements? Yet completely adhere to the
> semantics of its programming language (whch means never doing anything
> undefined?)
>
> You've only been a coding technician and not an actual engineer,
> that's why you don't know basics like this.
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 05:39 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <10frial$7jie$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136250 |
On 22/11/2025 05:14, olcott wrote:
> On 11/21/2025 4:05 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2025 1:18 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/21/2025 11:29 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/20/2025 11:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>> No, it states that D would be non-halting in the
>>>>>>>> hypothetical situtation
>>>>>>>> in whch H neglected to abort, and just kept simulating.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH has no idea that DD is calling itself, HHH
>>>>>>> can only see that DD is calling the same function
>>>>>>> twice in sequence with no conditional branch in
>>>>>>> DD to stop this from infinitely repeating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's been explained to you that ths doesn't happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any given invocation of DD makes only one call to HHH
>>>>>> (as anyone can plainly see from its simple code of several
>>>>>> lines!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Those double-talk weasel words count as lying within
>>>>> the context of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> int DD()
>>>>> {
>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>>>>> input D
>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D
>>>>>>> would never
>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also agreed to these words, at least four times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above proves that the input to H(D) does specify
>>>>> non-halting behavior.
>>>>
>>>> All you are communicating is that you have no idea what
>>>> "prove" means;
>>>> where the bar is at for proving something.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A proof is ultimately any conclusion derived by
>>> applying correct semantic entailment to a
>>> self-evidently true basis.
>>
>> You've not even began to do anythng of this sort.
>>
>>> The semantics of C and the above function are the
>>> self-evidently true basis.
>>
>> The above function is incomplete. You have to show all of
>> HHHH, and how exactly it simulates DD, and how it comes to
>> the conclusion that it should stop doing that and return 0.
>>
>
> The combination of the semantics of C
> and the source of the function DD provide
> all the information needed to specify all
> of the details of the steps of DD simulated
> by HHH.
Not so.
HHH could, for example, contain its own exit() call, in which
case DD halts, or its own for(;;); loop, in which case DD doesn't
halt... or even both, in which case it all depends.
Since DD calls HHH, DD's behaviour depends on HHH's behaviour,
and any analysis of DD's behaviour must therefore include an
analysis of HHH's behaviour.
What you have to remember about olcott is that not only does he
have no understanding of DD's specific dependency on HHH (ie
whether DD halts depends first and foremost on HHH's coin-toss
decision), but neither does he have any idea of any C function's
generic dependency on the functions it calls.
Not only is olcott a damned liar, but he's a damned idiot. He is,
in fact, a fine exemplar of why killfiles were invented. Just
plonk him and (barring the odd nymshyft) you can be done with him
for good.
<snip>
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 07:05 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <10fsce0$esmf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136251 |
On 11/21/2025 11:39 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 22/11/2025 05:14, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/21/2025 4:05 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2025 1:18 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/21/2025 11:29 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2025 11:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>> No, it states that D would be non-halting in the hypothetical
>>>>>>>>> situtation
>>>>>>>>> in whch H neglected to abort, and just kept simulating.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HHH has no idea that DD is calling itself, HHH
>>>>>>>> can only see that DD is calling the same function
>>>>>>>> twice in sequence with no conditional branch in
>>>>>>>> DD to stop this from infinitely repeating.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's been explained to you that ths doesn't happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any given invocation of DD makes only one call to HHH
>>>>>>> (as anyone can plainly see from its simple code of several
>>>>>>> lines!)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those double-talk weasel words count as lying within
>>>>>> the context of this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also agreed to these words, at least four times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above proves that the input to H(D) does specify
>>>>>> non-halting behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> All you are communicating is that you have no idea what "prove" means;
>>>>> where the bar is at for proving something.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A proof is ultimately any conclusion derived by
>>>> applying correct semantic entailment to a
>>>> self-evidently true basis.
>>>
>>> You've not even began to do anythng of this sort.
>>>
>>>> The semantics of C and the above function are the
>>>> self-evidently true basis.
>>>
>>> The above function is incomplete. You have to show all of
>>> HHHH, and how exactly it simulates DD, and how it comes to
>>> the conclusion that it should stop doing that and return 0.
>>>
>>
>> The combination of the semantics of C
>> and the source of the function DD provide
>> all the information needed to specify all
>> of the details of the steps of DD simulated
>> by HHH.
>
> Not so.
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words10/13/2022>
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
> (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
> that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
> HHH could, for example, contain its own exit() call, in which case DD
> halts, or its own for(;;); loop, in which case DD doesn't halt... or
> even both, in which case it all depends.
>
> Since DD calls HHH, DD's behaviour depends on HHH's behaviour, and any
> analysis of DD's behaviour must therefore include an analysis of HHH's
> behaviour.
>
> What you have to remember about olcott is that not only does he have no
> understanding of DD's specific dependency on HHH (ie whether DD halts
> depends first and foremost on HHH's coin-toss decision), but neither
> does he have any idea of any C function's generic dependency on the
> functions it calls.
>
> Not only is olcott a damned liar, but he's a damned idiot. He is, in
> fact, a fine exemplar of why killfiles were invented. Just plonk him and
> (barring the odd nymshyft) you can be done with him for good.
>
> <snip>
>
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 07:00 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <20251121224943.151@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136250 |
On 2025-11-22, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
> On 11/21/2025 4:05 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2025 1:18 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/21/2025 11:29 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/20/2025 11:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>> No, it states that D would be non-halting in the hypothetical situtation
>>>>>>>> in whch H neglected to abort, and just kept simulating.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> HHH has no idea that DD is calling itself, HHH
>>>>>>> can only see that DD is calling the same function
>>>>>>> twice in sequence with no conditional branch in
>>>>>>> DD to stop this from infinitely repeating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's been explained to you that ths doesn't happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any given invocation of DD makes only one call to HHH
>>>>>> (as anyone can plainly see from its simple code of several
>>>>>> lines!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Those double-talk weasel words count as lying within
>>>>> the context of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> int DD()
>>>>> {
>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I also agreed to these words, at least four times.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above proves that the input to H(D) does specify
>>>>> non-halting behavior.
>>>>
>>>> All you are communicating is that you have no idea what "prove" means;
>>>> where the bar is at for proving something.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A proof is ultimately any conclusion derived by
>>> applying correct semantic entailment to a
>>> self-evidently true basis.
>>
>> You've not even began to do anythng of this sort.
>>
>>> The semantics of C and the above function are the
>>> self-evidently true basis.
>>
>> The above function is incomplete. You have to show all of
>> HHHH, and how exactly it simulates DD, and how it comes to
>> the conclusion that it should stop doing that and return 0.
>>
>
> The combination of the semantics of C
> and the source of the function DD provide
> all the information needed to specify all
> of the details of the steps of DD simulated
> by HHH.
OK so:
1. The semantics of C plus the source code of DD is enough to specify
all the steps of a DD invocation from main: int main() { DD(); }
[More or less self-evident.]
2. The xemantics of C and the source of the function DD provide all the
information needed to specify all of the details of the steps of DD
simulated by HHH. [Your text above]
Yet, you claim, that the information needed to produce the
steps of DD that occur under (1) is not present in the input to
HHH in (2), and that it's okay for (2) to decide that DD is
nonterminating even though (1) shows a terminating DD.
How is that not bat shit crazy/
>> Those can all be incorrect, without the "semantics of C"
>> being violated!
The aborting HHH doesn't just simulate DD according to C semantics.
At some pont, /contrary/ to the C semantics, it stops doing that
and returns 0/false.
It decides to stop according to an algorithm that is not given in the C
language semantics. It is an algorthm that you have pulled out of your
ass, and which is shown incorrect since
1. HHH(DD) returns 0.
2. D() executed from main halts.
3. The simulation of D abandoned by HHH(DD) has a continuation whch
halts (already demonstrated with code).
There is evidence that the abort decision algorithm is not
correct like you claim.
You are not addressing the evidence; just dismissing it and
claiming everything is fine.
--
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 | 2025-11-22 07:26 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <10fsdm5$fd4u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136254 |
On 11/22/2025 1:00 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-22, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>> On 11/21/2025 4:05 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2025 1:18 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/21/2025 11:29 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2025 11:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>> No, it states that D would be non-halting in the hypothetical situtation
>>>>>>>>> in whch H neglected to abort, and just kept simulating.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> HHH has no idea that DD is calling itself, HHH
>>>>>>>> can only see that DD is calling the same function
>>>>>>>> twice in sequence with no conditional branch in
>>>>>>>> DD to stop this from infinitely repeating.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's been explained to you that ths doesn't happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Any given invocation of DD makes only one call to HHH
>>>>>>> (as anyone can plainly see from its simple code of several
>>>>>>> lines!)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Those double-talk weasel words count as lying within
>>>>>> the context of this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
>>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I also agreed to these words, at least four times.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above proves that the input to H(D) does specify
>>>>>> non-halting behavior.
>>>>>
>>>>> All you are communicating is that you have no idea what "prove" means;
>>>>> where the bar is at for proving something.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A proof is ultimately any conclusion derived by
>>>> applying correct semantic entailment to a
>>>> self-evidently true basis.
>>>
>>> You've not even began to do anythng of this sort.
>>>
>>>> The semantics of C and the above function are the
>>>> self-evidently true basis.
>>>
>>> The above function is incomplete. You have to show all of
>>> HHHH, and how exactly it simulates DD, and how it comes to
>>> the conclusion that it should stop doing that and return 0.
>>>
>>
>> The combination of the semantics of C
>> and the source of the function DD provide
>> all the information needed to specify all
>> of the details of the steps of DD simulated
>> by HHH.
>
> OK so:
>
> 1. The semantics of C plus the source code of DD is enough to specify
> all the steps of a DD invocation from main:
No Liar those are not the words that I said.
I wasted 15 years with Ben Bacarisse because
I tolerated his change the subject rebuttal.
I have learned my lesson and will not make
this mistake again.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 19:29 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <10ft2vl$o9so$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136262 |
On 22/11/2025 13:26, olcott wrote:
> On 11/22/2025 1:00 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-22, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/21/2025 4:05 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/21/2025 1:18 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/21/2025 11:29 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2025 11:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> No, it states that D would be non-halting in the hypothetical
>>>>>>>>>> situtation
>>>>>>>>>> in whch H neglected to abort, and just kept simulating.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> HHH has no idea that DD is calling itself, HHH
>>>>>>>>> can only see that DD is calling the same function
>>>>>>>>> twice in sequence with no conditional branch in
>>>>>>>>> DD to stop this from infinitely repeating.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's been explained to you that ths doesn't happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Any given invocation of DD makes only one call to HHH
>>>>>>>> (as anyone can plainly see from its simple code of several
>>>>>>>> lines!)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those double-talk weasel words count as lying within
>>>>>>> the context of this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>>>>>>> input D
>>>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would
>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I also agreed to these words, at least four times.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above proves that the input to H(D) does specify
>>>>>>> non-halting behavior.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All you are communicating is that you have no idea what "prove"
>>>>>> means;
>>>>>> where the bar is at for proving something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> A proof is ultimately any conclusion derived by
>>>>> applying correct semantic entailment to a
>>>>> self-evidently true basis.
>>>>
>>>> You've not even began to do anythng of this sort.
>>>>
>>>>> The semantics of C and the above function are the
>>>>> self-evidently true basis.
>>>>
>>>> The above function is incomplete. You have to show all of
>>>> HHHH, and how exactly it simulates DD, and how it comes to
>>>> the conclusion that it should stop doing that and return 0.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The combination of the semantics of C
>>> and the source of the function DD provide
>>> all the information needed to specify all
>>> of the details of the steps of DD simulated
>>> by HHH.
>>
>> OK so:
>>
>> 1. The semantics of C plus the source code of DD is enough to specify
>> all the steps of a DD invocation from main:
> No Liar those are not the words that I said.
Kaz, check the conversation context. H, HH, HHH, D, DD. They're
different names, they might have different definitions and some might
only exist as binders within specific problem statements.
That would explain Olcott's comment about changing the subject - you
mixed names up or switched the conversation from one to the other
because there are or have been multiple such.
--
Tristan Wibberley
The message body is Copyright (C) 2025 Tristan Wibberley except
citations and quotations noted. All Rights Reserved except that you may,
of course, cite it academically giving credit to me, distribute it
verbatim as part of a usenet system or its archives, and use it to
promote my greatness and general superiority without misrepresentation
of my opinions other than my opinion of my greatness and general
superiority which you _may_ misrepresent. You definitely MAY NOT train
any production AI system with it but you may train experimental AI that
will only be used for evaluation of the AI methods it implements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-22 13:44 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <10ft3qt$ovd5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136284 |
On 11/22/2025 1:29 PM, Tristan Wibberley wrote:
> On 22/11/2025 13:26, olcott wrote:
>> On 11/22/2025 1:00 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-22, olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/21/2025 4:05 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/21/2025 1:18 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/21/2025 11:29 AM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-21, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2025 11:04 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> No, it states that D would be non-halting in the hypothetical
>>>>>>>>>>> situtation
>>>>>>>>>>> in whch H neglected to abort, and just kept simulating.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> HHH has no idea that DD is calling itself, HHH
>>>>>>>>>> can only see that DD is calling the same function
>>>>>>>>>> twice in sequence with no conditional branch in
>>>>>>>>>> DD to stop this from infinitely repeating.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It's been explained to you that ths doesn't happen.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Any given invocation of DD makes only one call to HHH
>>>>>>>>> (as anyone can plainly see from its simple code of several
>>>>>>>>> lines!)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Those double-talk weasel words count as lying within
>>>>>>>> the context of this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/20/2025 8:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-20, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words
>>>>>>>>>> 10/13/2022>
>>>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
>>>>>>>>>> input D
>>>>>>>>>> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would
>>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted then...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I also agreed to these words, at least four times.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The above proves that the input to H(D) does specify
>>>>>>>> non-halting behavior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All you are communicating is that you have no idea what "prove"
>>>>>>> means;
>>>>>>> where the bar is at for proving something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A proof is ultimately any conclusion derived by
>>>>>> applying correct semantic entailment to a
>>>>>> self-evidently true basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> You've not even began to do anythng of this sort.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The semantics of C and the above function are the
>>>>>> self-evidently true basis.
>>>>>
>>>>> The above function is incomplete. You have to show all of
>>>>> HHHH, and how exactly it simulates DD, and how it comes to
>>>>> the conclusion that it should stop doing that and return 0.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The combination of the semantics of C
>>>> and the source of the function DD provide
>>>> all the information needed to specify all
>>>> of the details of the steps of DD simulated
>>>> by HHH.
>>>
>>> OK so:
>>>
>>> 1. The semantics of C plus the source code of DD is enough to specify
>>> all the steps of a DD invocation from main:
>> No Liar those are not the words that I said.
>
>
> Kaz, check the conversation context. H, HH, HHH, D, DD. They're
> different names, they might have different definitions and some might
> only exist as binders within specific problem statements.
>
> That would explain Olcott's comment about changing the subject - you
> mixed names up or switched the conversation from one to the other
> because there are or have been multiple such.
>
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its
input D until H correctly determines that its simulated D
would never stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
My whole point for at least three years now
is that DD simulated by HHH specifies recursive
simulation that cannot stop unless aborted and
directly executed DD() specifies halting.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web