Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #135170 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-11-06 14:48 -0600 |
| Last post | 2025-11-26 00:45 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 637 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 14:48 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 15:55 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 21:10 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 15:32 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-06 22:07 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:16 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:26 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:32 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:55 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:00 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:12 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:32 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:43 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:59 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:28 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:37 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:50 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:56 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:57 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-06 22:07 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:24 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:27 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 16:52 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:58 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:08 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 17:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:52 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 00:00 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:16 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 01:46 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 20:46 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:01 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 04:16 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:19 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 23:27 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-07 10:45 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 06:55 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 21:43 +0800
Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:06 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 22:12 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:28 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 22:35 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:38 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 22:55 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 09:06 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 23:17 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 09:20 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 23:34 +0800
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 09:53 -0600
Re: Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-11-08 00:07 +0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-07 14:16 +0000
Proof that D simulated by H never reaches its own simulated "return" statement olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 08:29 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-06 21:31 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:45 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 03:59 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-06 22:07 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 23:11 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 23:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:02 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:04 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:01 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:05 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:30 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:36 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:44 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:51 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:54 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 18:57 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:58 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 01:22 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 19:25 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-07 03:41 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-06 22:00 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-07 10:05 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-07 06:57 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-08 10:05 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-08 07:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-09 12:22 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-09 06:51 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 06:17 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 08:40 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 23:14 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 18:27 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 04:02 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 09:43 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 11:28 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 23:19 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 21:58 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-10 11:43 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 08:48 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-10 23:09 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 17:53 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 03:55 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 21:59 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 04:09 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 06:59 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 08:03 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-11 19:17 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 15:38 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 16:56 -0500
How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 19:38 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 02:13 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 20:33 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 21:05 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 21:45 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 05:52 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 23:59 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 06:13 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:50 -0600
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:41 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:41 +0000
Re: How pathological self-reference is confused with undecidability Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:41 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 02:20 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 20:41 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-12 06:11 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 07:37 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-12 15:03 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 09:11 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 02:16 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 21:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 20:30 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 21:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-13 04:44 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 22:55 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 08:32 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 07:38 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 17:40 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 13:20 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 19:38 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 14:22 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-11 10:59 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 07:04 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 08:05 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-12 09:09 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:54 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 10:48 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:50 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:21 +0200
The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:00 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-15 12:15 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:12 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-16 11:18 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 18:12 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-17 10:43 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-18 12:23 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 10:43 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-18 18:04 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 12:26 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 18:51 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 14:01 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 20:24 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 14:39 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2025-11-18 21:30 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:43 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:48 -0600
Weasel word double talk excuses =--- AKA Liars olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:57 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-19 11:46 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 06:59 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-20 11:10 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 12:01 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:17 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:29 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 18:35 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 13:55 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:58 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 21:47 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 15:53 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 22:19 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 16:48 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:00 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 23:55 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:20 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 00:39 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:51 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:02 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:24 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:42 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 02:00 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:37 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 04:15 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 06:51 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 08:59 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:16 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:17 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 07:41 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 07:40 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:00 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:39 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:59 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:26 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 04:19 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:39 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-27 04:48 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:58 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 07:06 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:16 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:21 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Jan van den Broek <balglaas@dds.nl> - 2025-11-27 07:45 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:08 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:38 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:05 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:05 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:18 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 16:27 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-29 01:25 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 16:24 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 16:36 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:14 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:49 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:58 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:14 +0200
The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:46 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 10:59 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:27 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:38 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 14:58 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-01 12:45 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 06:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 14:29 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 08:38 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 14:45 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 08:57 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:06 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:19 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:26 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:29 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:31 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:39 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:48 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:55 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 16:00 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 10:27 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 16:41 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 18:24 -0600
Olcott is provably correct --- no one can correctly refute this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 19:54 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-02 11:07 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 08:14 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 13:34 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 10:27 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 11:17 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:15 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:23 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-06 17:26 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:21 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:40 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:37 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:24 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:18 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:52 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 11:01 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-10 09:37 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-11 10:56 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 07:02 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 08:04 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-11 13:19 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-12 09:12 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-12 06:56 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-13 10:51 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 01:00 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 09:56 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-13 19:12 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-13 14:39 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-14 11:24 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:12 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-15 12:23 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-15 10:14 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-16 11:21 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 15:39 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:15 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 16:24 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 10:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-16 17:13 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-16 11:40 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-17 10:46 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:34 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-18 12:26 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 10:45 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-18 21:21 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 15:29 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 16:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 01:01 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 19:27 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 02:53 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 21:07 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:30 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:31 +0000
DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 22:45 -0600
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 04:52 +0000
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-18 23:08 -0600
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 00:14 -0500
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-19 05:23 +0000
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-19 10:58 +0000
Re: DDD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 06:18 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-11-23 21:20 +0000
Glossary of names of my simulating termination analyzer HHH(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 16:29 -0600
Re: Glossary of names of my simulating termination analyzer HHH(DD) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-24 11:23 +0200
Re: Glossary of names of my simulating termination analyzer HHH(DD) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 07:30 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-19 11:50 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-19 07:01 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-20 11:11 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 13:54 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-21 21:58 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-21 23:09 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 06:49 +0000
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:22 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 17:51 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 12:06 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:08 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 18:08 +0000
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 03:53 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 07:03 +0000
polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 07:33 -0600
Re: polcott agrees the Kaz is a damned liar --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-22 17:56 +0000
Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 13:29 -0600
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 04:00 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-22 23:02 -0600
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 05:23 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-23 05:24 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 14:53 -0600
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 13:32 -0800
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 02:44 +0000
Re: Dangerous Precipice that could end all life --- DD simulated by HHH Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 02:45 +0000
DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 21:15 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-23 23:54 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 16:32 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 16:32 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 10:37 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 17:55 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 12:08 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:22 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:30 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:20 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:31 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:45 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-24 17:23 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-25 05:10 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 23:25 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:34 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 05:43 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 23:51 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:21 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 17:37 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 12:52 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 17:59 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 12:32 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 12:28 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:45 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 10:45 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 tTh <tth@none.invalid> - 2025-11-24 19:45 +0100
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-24 18:12 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 12:21 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:30 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:32 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:15 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:25 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 17:21 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 13:47 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 11:20 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 19:27 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:14 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:22 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 17:19 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 16:15 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 16:25 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 01:39 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 02:15 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 22:12 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-24 23:33 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 18:33 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 16:37 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-25 02:10 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 22:10 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:38 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 14:47 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:35 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 19:43 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-24 22:45 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2025-11-24 17:24 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 01:42 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 02:15 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-24 22:35 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 07:00 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 07:00 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 08:56 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:49 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:39 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:44 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:06 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:50 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:06 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 09:44 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 10:46 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-25 19:19 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:35 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 20:27 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 20:27 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:52 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 16:42 -0500
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 20:38 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:56 -0600
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:32 -0800
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-28 17:24 +0000
Re: DD simulated by HHH and DD simulated by HHH1 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 12:09 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-22 10:25 +0200
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-24 22:30 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 16:20 +0100
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 09:47 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 16:50 +0100
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 10:09 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:33 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:36 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 11:37 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:29 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:39 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:44 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:04 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:09 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:36 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 19:08 +0000
Olcott creates a new foundation for automated correct reasoning olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:22 -0600
Re: Olcott creates a new foundation for automated correct reasoning Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 16:47 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 12:35 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 16:45 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:05 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-11-26 17:13 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:36 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:41 -0800
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 13:08 -0500
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 17:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 11:52 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-25 18:46 +0000
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:18 -0600
Re: D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own simulated final halt state dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 12:05 -0800
New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 14:20 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:09 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 21:12 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 15:27 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 17:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-25 23:25 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:00 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:04 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:14 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:42 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 00:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:52 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:57 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:29 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:32 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:29 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 19:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:45 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:34 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:03 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 17:03 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 19:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:36 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:38 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:36 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable polcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:43 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:09 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:32 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:15 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:36 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:22 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:20 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:31 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:43 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:17 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:42 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:29 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:54 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-28 17:22 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 16:31 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:40 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:42 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 15:01 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:46 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:22 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:27 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:33 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:36 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:50 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:58 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:21 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:54 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:55 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:58 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:11 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:23 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:24 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 20:56 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:01 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:53 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:06 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 21:59 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:18 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 05:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:14 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 07:27 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:00 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:08 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:12 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:36 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:41 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:43 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:24 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:26 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:30 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:47 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 22:01 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 04:07 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 10:04 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:34 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 11:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 08:58 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:30 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:35 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:16 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:44 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:14 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:13 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:36 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 09:18 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:48 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-30 12:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 12:53 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 10:11 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 11:07 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:10 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-05 11:13 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-05 11:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:19 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:45 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:55 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:44 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:21 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:46 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-07 12:50 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-07 11:15 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-08 11:08 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-08 13:05 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-13 13:05 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-13 09:55 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-15 11:52 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-15 09:49 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-17 12:49 +0200
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:45 -0700
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 02:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 20:37 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:02 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:06 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 03:08 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 03:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:28 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-11-26 05:53 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:15 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:21 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:08 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:19 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:22 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:30 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:18 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:14 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 01:48 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-25 20:59 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 21:11 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:16 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:34 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:05 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 13:27 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Tristan Wibberley <tristan.wibberley+netnews2@alumni.manchester.ac.uk> - 2025-11-26 19:23 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:40 -0500
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:03 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 16:29 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:31 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 17:09 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 01:19 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 18:38 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 02:40 +0000
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable dart200 <user7160@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2025-11-25 19:16 -0800
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-25 18:40 -0600
Re: New formal foundation for correct reasoning makes True(X) computable Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-26 00:45 +0000
Page 9 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 32 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 14:39 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways |
| Message-ID | <10filie$1qidv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136004 |
On 11/18/2025 2:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Newsgroups: trimmed ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/18/2025 12:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/18/2025 12:04 PM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Tue, 18 Nov 2025 10:43:32 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 11/18/2025 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote: > >>>>>>> The information that HHH is given is the same as a C execution >>>>>>> environment is given for a direct exectuion. > >>>>>> No it is not. > >>>>> What information are HHH, HHH1, a UTM and an x86 processor given or not? >>>>> What is different, what is missing? > > >>>> If you understood what ordinary recursion >>>> is you would have known this a long time ago. > >>> You patronising little bastard. > > >> I asked her time and time again whether >> she had any actual programming experience. >> That lack of any response would seem to >> indicate negative. > > That's totally irrelevant. A straight question was asked, and you chose > to insult rather than giving a straight answer. > After my straight question was either dodged or lied about for more than three years I upped the ante to counter baseless denigration of my work that is an example of the "reckless disregard for the truth" that loses libel cases. If I didn't do this then the baseless denigration of my work could be construed as correct. It would be stupid of me to tolerate that. >>>> Not having any understanding of ordinary >>>> recursion makes it impossible for you to understand. > >>> Joes understands recursion full well, just like every other poster on >>> this group. > >>>> When I say that DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive simulation >>>> translates into DD blah, blah, blah blah blah >>>> you will never be able to get it. > >>> That wasn't the question asked. The question asked is still cited above, >>> and you appear unable to answer it. Or maybe you lack the manners to do >>> so. > > >> The implied base question which everyone here (besides Ben) either >> dodged or expressed counter-factual assessment was: > Do you understand that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state. > There was no such "implied base question". There was a simple factual > enquiry having nothing to do with .... > >> Do you understand that DD simulated by HHH cannot >> possibly reach its own "return" statement final >> halt state? > > That, by the way, is a loaded question. It's been fully dealt with by > other posters on this group. > It has been fully dealt with by Ben everyone else dishonestly dodges it or flat about lies about it and you cannot find any post in the last three years that shows otherwise. If you are not a damned liar then provide the date/time stamp and the quote you are referring to. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 21:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways |
| Message-ID | <10fiohm$1ke9$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #136005 |
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/18/2025 2:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> [ Newsgroups: trimmed ] >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 11/18/2025 12:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 11/18/2025 12:04 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Tue, 18 Nov 2025 10:43:32 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 11/18/2025 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> The information that HHH is given is the same as a C execution >>>>>>>> environment is given for a direct exectuion. >>>>>>> No it is not. >>>>>> What information are HHH, HHH1, a UTM and an x86 processor given >>>>>> or not? What is different, what is missing? >>>>> If you understood what ordinary recursion >>>>> is you would have known this a long time ago. >>>> You patronising little bastard. >>> I asked her time and time again whether >>> she had any actual programming experience. >>> That lack of any response would seem to >>> indicate negative. >> That's totally irrelevant. A straight question was asked, and you >> chose to insult rather than giving a straight answer. > After my straight question was either dodged or lied about for more > than three years .... I have seen no question of yours habitually dodged or lied about. People, including me, have answered your questions honestly and truthfully. > .... I upped the ante to counter baseless denigration of my work .... I have seen no baseless denigration of your work. Other posters have given up their time to review and criticise your work. You have failed to take that criticism on board. > .... that is an example of the "reckless disregard for the truth" that > loses libel cases. No, it is a thankless striving after the truth. And even if you were right in what you're saying, it wouldn't be a libel cause, since it's not defamation directed at your person. > If I didn't do this then the baseless denigration of my work could be > construed as correct. It would be stupid of me to tolerate that. You mean if you didn't answer pertinent straight questions with derogatory insults and innuendo. If you actually acted honourably on this newgroup you might find things going better for you. >>>>> Not having any understanding of ordinary >>>>> recursion makes it impossible for you to understand. >>>> Joes understands recursion full well, just like every other poster on >>>> this group. >>>>> When I say that DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive simulation >>>>> translates into DD blah, blah, blah blah blah >>>>> you will never be able to get it. >>>> That wasn't the question asked. The question asked is still cited >>>> above, and you appear unable to answer it. Or maybe you lack the >>>> manners to do so. >>> The implied base question which everyone here (besides Ben) either >>> dodged or expressed counter-factual assessment was: > Do you understand that DD simulated by HHH > cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return" > statement final halt state. As a fact, HHH simulating DD _can_ reach DD's return instruction. Kaz and Mike have actually tried this out using your HHH and seen it reaching the return. You have dodged their findings. >> There was no such "implied base question". There was a simple factual >> enquiry having nothing to do with .... >>> Do you understand that DD simulated by HHH cannot >>> possibly reach its own "return" statement final >>> halt state? >> That, by the way, is a loaded question. It's been fully dealt with by >> other posters on this group. > It has been fully dealt with by Ben everyone else dishonestly dodges it > or flat about lies about it .... There you go again, projecting your own lying onto everybody else. If anybody is lying about this it isn't Kaz, Mike and everybody else. > .... and you cannot find any post in the last three years that shows > otherwise. I could, they are plentiful, but I can't be bothered. > If you are not a damned liar then provide the date/time stamp and the > quote you are referring to. There are hundreds of such messages. You can't fail to be aware of them. > -- > Copyright 2025 Olcott > My 28 year goal has been to make > "true on the basis of meaning" computable. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 15:43 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways |
| Message-ID | <10fipak$1rlbm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136009 |
On 11/18/2025 3:30 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 11/18/2025 2:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> [ Newsgroups: trimmed ] > >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 11/18/2025 12:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 11/18/2025 12:04 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Am Tue, 18 Nov 2025 10:43:32 -0600 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> On 11/18/2025 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote: > >>>>>>>>> The information that HHH is given is the same as a C execution >>>>>>>>> environment is given for a direct exectuion. > >>>>>>>> No it is not. > >>>>>>> What information are HHH, HHH1, a UTM and an x86 processor given >>>>>>> or not? What is different, what is missing? > > >>>>>> If you understood what ordinary recursion >>>>>> is you would have known this a long time ago. > >>>>> You patronising little bastard. > > >>>> I asked her time and time again whether >>>> she had any actual programming experience. >>>> That lack of any response would seem to >>>> indicate negative. > >>> That's totally irrelevant. A straight question was asked, and you >>> chose to insult rather than giving a straight answer. > > >> After my straight question was either dodged or lied about for more >> than three years .... > > I have seen no question of yours habitually dodged or lied about. > People, including me, have answered your questions honestly and > truthfully. > *Variations of this question* Can you understand that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state? *Variations of this question* Can you understand that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state? *Variations of this question* Can you understand that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state? *Variations of this question* Can you understand that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state? *Variations of this question* Can you understand that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state? *Variations of this question* Can you understand that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state? *Variations of this question* Can you understand that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state? *Variations of this question* Can you understand that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state? *Variations of this question* Can you understand that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state? *Variations of this question* Can you understand that DD simulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return" statement final halt state? -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 15:48 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways |
| Message-ID | <10fipj7$1rnto$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136009 |
On 11/18/2025 3:30 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/18/2025 2:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> [ Newsgroups: trimmed ]
>
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/18/2025 12:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/18/2025 12:04 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Tue, 18 Nov 2025 10:43:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 11/18/2025 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> The information that HHH is given is the same as a C execution
>>>>>>>>> environment is given for a direct exectuion.
>
>>>>>>>> No it is not.
>
>>>>>>> What information are HHH, HHH1, a UTM and an x86 processor given
>>>>>>> or not? What is different, what is missing?
>
>
>>>>>> If you understood what ordinary recursion
>>>>>> is you would have known this a long time ago.
>
>>>>> You patronising little bastard.
>
>
>>>> I asked her time and time again whether
>>>> she had any actual programming experience.
>>>> That lack of any response would seem to
>>>> indicate negative.
>
>>> That's totally irrelevant. A straight question was asked, and you
>>> chose to insult rather than giving a straight answer.
>
>
>> After my straight question was either dodged or lied about for more
>> than three years ....
>
> I have seen no question of yours habitually dodged or lied about.
> People, including me, have answered your questions honestly and
> truthfully.
>
>> .... I upped the ante to counter baseless denigration of my work ....
>
> I have seen no baseless denigration of your work. Other posters have
> given up their time to review and criticise your work. You have failed
> to take that criticism on board.
>
>> .... that is an example of the "reckless disregard for the truth" that
>> loses libel cases.
>
> No, it is a thankless striving after the truth. And even if you were
> right in what you're saying, it wouldn't be a libel cause, since it's not
> defamation directed at your person.
>
>> If I didn't do this then the baseless denigration of my work could be
>> construed as correct. It would be stupid of me to tolerate that.
>
> You mean if you didn't answer pertinent straight questions with
> derogatory insults and innuendo. If you actually acted honourably on
> this newgroup you might find things going better for you.
>
>>>>>> Not having any understanding of ordinary
>>>>>> recursion makes it impossible for you to understand.
>
>>>>> Joes understands recursion full well, just like every other poster on
>>>>> this group.
>
>>>>>> When I say that DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive simulation
>>>>>> translates into DD blah, blah, blah blah blah
>>>>>> you will never be able to get it.
>
>>>>> That wasn't the question asked. The question asked is still cited
>>>>> above, and you appear unable to answer it. Or maybe you lack the
>>>>> manners to do so.
>
>
>>>> The implied base question which everyone here (besides Ben) either
>>>> dodged or expressed counter-factual assessment was:
>
>
>> Do you understand that DD simulated by HHH
>> cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return"
>> statement final halt state.
>
> As a fact, HHH simulating DD _can_ reach DD's return instruction. Kaz
> and Mike have actually tried this out using your HHH and seen it reaching
> the return. You have dodged their findings.
>
>>> There was no such "implied base question". There was a simple factual
>>> enquiry having nothing to do with ....
>
>>>> Do you understand that DD simulated by HHH cannot
>>>> possibly reach its own "return" statement final
>>>> halt state?
>
>>> That, by the way, is a loaded question. It's been fully dealt with by
>>> other posters on this group.
>
>
>> It has been fully dealt with by Ben everyone else dishonestly dodges it
>> or flat about lies about it ....
>
> There you go again, projecting your own lying onto everybody else. If
> anybody is lying about this it isn't Kaz, Mike and everybody else.
>
>> .... and you cannot find any post in the last three years that shows
>> otherwise.
>
> I could, they are plentiful, but I can't be bothered.
>
>> If you are not a damned liar then provide the date/time stamp and the
>> quote you are referring to.
>
> There are hundreds of such messages. You can't fail to be aware of them.
>
I will count your failure to even point to
one of them as your admission that you know
that you are a damned liar, until you point
to at least one of them.
(a) It cannot be counter-factual.
(b) It cannot be a dishonest dodge change of subject.
(c) It cannot be the strawman error changing my words
and then rebutting the changed words.
(d) It cannot be a mere assertion it must prove its point.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-18 15:57 -0600 |
| Subject | Weasel word double talk excuses =--- AKA Liars |
| Message-ID | <10fiq4h$1rs9t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136009 |
On 11/18/2025 3:30 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/18/2025 2:24 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> [ Newsgroups: trimmed ]
>
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/18/2025 12:51 PM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/18/2025 12:04 PM, joes wrote:
>>>>>>> Am Tue, 18 Nov 2025 10:43:32 -0600 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>>>> On 11/18/2025 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> The information that HHH is given is the same as a C execution
>>>>>>>>> environment is given for a direct exectuion.
>
>>>>>>>> No it is not.
>
>>>>>>> What information are HHH, HHH1, a UTM and an x86 processor given
>>>>>>> or not? What is different, what is missing?
>
>
>>>>>> If you understood what ordinary recursion
>>>>>> is you would have known this a long time ago.
>
>>>>> You patronising little bastard.
>
>
>>>> I asked her time and time again whether
>>>> she had any actual programming experience.
>>>> That lack of any response would seem to
>>>> indicate negative.
>
>>> That's totally irrelevant. A straight question was asked, and you
>>> chose to insult rather than giving a straight answer.
>
>
>> After my straight question was either dodged or lied about for more
>> than three years ....
>
> I have seen no question of yours habitually dodged or lied about.
> People, including me, have answered your questions honestly and
> truthfully.
>
>> .... I upped the ante to counter baseless denigration of my work ....
>
> I have seen no baseless denigration of your work. Other posters have
> given up their time to review and criticise your work. You have failed
> to take that criticism on board.
>
>> .... that is an example of the "reckless disregard for the truth" that
>> loses libel cases.
>
> No, it is a thankless striving after the truth. And even if you were
> right in what you're saying, it wouldn't be a libel cause, since it's not
> defamation directed at your person.
>
>> If I didn't do this then the baseless denigration of my work could be
>> construed as correct. It would be stupid of me to tolerate that.
>
> You mean if you didn't answer pertinent straight questions with
> derogatory insults and innuendo. If you actually acted honourably on
> this newgroup you might find things going better for you.
>
>>>>>> Not having any understanding of ordinary
>>>>>> recursion makes it impossible for you to understand.
>
>>>>> Joes understands recursion full well, just like every other poster on
>>>>> this group.
>
>>>>>> When I say that DD calls HHH(DD) in recursive simulation
>>>>>> translates into DD blah, blah, blah blah blah
>>>>>> you will never be able to get it.
>
>>>>> That wasn't the question asked. The question asked is still cited
>>>>> above, and you appear unable to answer it. Or maybe you lack the
>>>>> manners to do so.
>
>
>>>> The implied base question which everyone here (besides Ben) either
>>>> dodged or expressed counter-factual assessment was:
>
>
>> Do you understand that DD simulated by HHH
>> cannot possibly reach its own simulated "return"
>> statement final halt state.
>
> As a fact, HHH simulating DD _can_ reach DD's return instruction. Kaz
> and Mike have actually tried this out using your HHH and seen it reaching
> the return. You have dodged their findings.
>
int DD()
{
int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
if (Halt_Status)
HERE: goto HERE;
return Halt_Status;
}
Weasel word double talk excuses do not count
as a single contiguous execution trace in C
showing exactly how and why DD simulated by
HHH reaches its own simulated "return" statement
final halt state.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 11:46 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways |
| Message-ID | <10fk3lm$25b8f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135993 |
On 2025-11-18 16:43:32 +0000, olcott said:
> On 11/18/2025 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-11-17 13:31:45 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 11/17/2025 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-17 00:12:14 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/16/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-15 16:12:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-14 15:00:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 15:50:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 12:54:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2025 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-11 13:04:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2025 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10 14:48:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-09 12:51:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-08 13:36:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/8/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-07 12:57:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06 20:48:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is merely a defect in H and irrelevanto to the semantic and other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a stupid statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid is better than false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is stupidly false because you didn't bother
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay any attention at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A statement about me is off topic in comp.theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that never reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated "return" statement final halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of D because D calls H(D) in recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you ever done any actual programming?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A question about me is off topic in comp.theory. But yes, I did yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is my key foundational point*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int H(char* P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above is in test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate.exe implements a C interpreter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runs the interpreter on the above source file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the command prompt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any program that does not correctly tell whether test.c halts is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider. A program that gives an incorrect answer is not even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a partial halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When this interpreter sees the call to H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it calls itself with the text body of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to C semanttics it should simulate H(D), either simultating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions of H or simulating the return from H(D) with the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned value as H(D) would return if executed, or do whatever H would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if H would not not return.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D) specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the behavour C semantics specifies. According to C semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other behavour that produces the same result is equally valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So D remains stuck in recursive simulation never being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to complete its first statement before calling H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again and again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that happens then H does not return and therefore is not a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe my work is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the definition of "decider" is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> People here have consistently lied about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD simulated by HHH reaching its own "return"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement final halt state for three years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You yourself have not told the truth about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this even once.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems to confirm that the definition of "decider" is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am just talking at the level of the execution
>>>>>>>>>>> trace of C functions. D does specify non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to its termination analyzer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The termination problem is not about specifying "to its termination
>>>>>>>>>> analyzer". Instead the termination problem is to determine whether
>>>>>>>>>> a program terminates every time when used as it was designed to be
>>>>>>>>>> used.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The halting problem requires that a halt decider
>>>>>>>>> correctly report on the behavior of its caller
>>>>>>>>> and no halt decider can even see its actual caller.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every halt decider is required to report on the behaviour asked about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And this is incorrect when it has not access to
>>>>>>> the behavior that it is asked about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is not. The solution to the halting problem must include the
>>>>>> necessary access. Conversely, a proof that the necessary access is
>>>>>> impossible is sufficient to prove that halting problem is unsolvable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reporing on the behavior of DD() executed from
>>>>> main requires HHH to report on information
>>>>> that is not contained in its input thus it is
>>>>> incorrect to require HHH to report on that.
>>>>
>>>> That HHH fails to meet the requirements does not mean that the
>>>> requirements are wrong. It merely meas that HHH is not a halt
>>>> decider.
>>>
>>> That HHH fails to meet the requirements by itself does
>>> not mean that the requirements are wrong.
>>
>> But it does by itself mean that HHH is not a halt decider.
>
> (a) Halt deciders are required to report on the
> actual behavior that their actual input actually
> specifies.
More often the input to halt deciders is required to specify the
actual behavour that the halt decder is required to report about.
But it is possible to formulate the problem either way withouth
any significant difference.
> (b) The halting problem requires Halt deciders to
> report on other than the actual behavior that their
> actual input actually specifies making the halting
> problem incorrect.
The way the problem is usually presented does not require that but
leaves it to the solver to specify encoding rules that enable the
decider to decide what it is required to decide.
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That the information that HHH is required to report
>>> on simply is not contained in its input is what makes
>>> the requirements wrong.
>>
>> The information that HHH is given is the same as a C execution
>> environment is given for a direct exectuion.
>
> No it is not.
Yes it it. In both cases the given information is the same DD.
> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
> that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>
> HHH1 simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
> that returns to DD that returns to HHH1.
> This is the same behavior as the directly
> executed DD.
>
> The sound basis of this reasoning is the
> semantics of the C programming language.
None of above proves (or even claims) that DD is different from DD.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-19 06:59 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways |
| Message-ID | <10fkev9$28e73$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136063 |
On 11/19/2025 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-11-18 16:43:32 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 11/18/2025 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-17 13:31:45 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 11/17/2025 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-17 00:12:14 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/16/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-15 16:12:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-14 15:00:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 15:50:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 12:54:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2025 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-11 13:04:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2025 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10 14:48:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-09 12:51:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-08 13:36:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/8/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-07 12:57:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06 20:48:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is merely a defect in H and irrelevanto to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantic and other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a stupid statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid is better than false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is stupidly false because you didn't bother
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay any attention at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A statement about me is off topic in comp.theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that never reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated "return" statement final halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of D because D calls H(D) in recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you ever done any actual programming?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A question about me is off topic in comp.theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But yes, I did yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is my key foundational point*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int H(char* P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above is in test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate.exe implements a C interpreter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runs the interpreter on the above source file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the command prompt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any program that does not correctly tell whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test.c halts is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider. A program that gives an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer is not even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a partial halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When this interpreter sees the call to H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it calls itself with the text body of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to C semanttics it should simulate H(D),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either simultating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions of H or simulating the return from H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned value as H(D) would return if executed, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do whatever H would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if H would not not return.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the behavour C semantics specifies. According to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> C semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other behavour that produces the same result is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equally valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So D remains stuck in recursive simulation never being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to complete its first statement before calling H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again and again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that happens then H does not return and therefore is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe my work is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the definition of "decider" is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People here have consistently lied about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD simulated by HHH reaching its own "return"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement final halt state for three years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You yourself have not told the truth about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this even once.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems to confirm that the definition of "decider" is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I am just talking at the level of the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of C functions. D does specify non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to its termination analyzer.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The termination problem is not about specifying "to its
>>>>>>>>>>> termination
>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer". Instead the termination problem is to determine
>>>>>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>>>>> a program terminates every time when used as it was designed
>>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>>> used.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem requires that a halt decider
>>>>>>>>>> correctly report on the behavior of its caller
>>>>>>>>>> and no halt decider can even see its actual caller.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Every halt decider is required to report on the behaviour asked
>>>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And this is incorrect when it has not access to
>>>>>>>> the behavior that it is asked about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it is not. The solution to the halting problem must include the
>>>>>>> necessary access. Conversely, a proof that the necessary access is
>>>>>>> impossible is sufficient to prove that halting problem is
>>>>>>> unsolvable.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Reporing on the behavior of DD() executed from
>>>>>> main requires HHH to report on information
>>>>>> that is not contained in its input thus it is
>>>>>> incorrect to require HHH to report on that.
>>>>>
>>>>> That HHH fails to meet the requirements does not mean that the
>>>>> requirements are wrong. It merely meas that HHH is not a halt
>>>>> decider.
>>>>
>>>> That HHH fails to meet the requirements by itself does
>>>> not mean that the requirements are wrong.
>>>
>>> But it does by itself mean that HHH is not a halt decider.
>>
>> (a) Halt deciders are required to report on the
>> actual behavior that their actual input actually
>> specifies.
>
> More often the input to halt deciders is required to specify the
> actual behavour that the halt decder is required to report about.
> But it is possible to formulate the problem either way withouth
> any significant difference.
>
Whenever the input to a halt decider does not
call this same decider then P simulated by H
has the same behavior as P() directly executed
from main().
>> (b) The halting problem requires Halt deciders to
>> report on other than the actual behavior that their
>> actual input actually specifies making the halting
>> problem incorrect.
>
> The way the problem is usually presented does not require that but
> leaves it to the solver to specify encoding rules that enable the
> decider to decide what it is required to decide.
>
The encoding rules are always the specification
language in this case C.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
The DDD input to to HHH specifies recursive simulation.
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> That the information that HHH is required to report
>>>> on simply is not contained in its input is what makes
>>>> the requirements wrong.
>>>
>>> The information that HHH is given is the same as a C execution
>>> environment is given for a direct exectuion.
>>
>> No it is not.
>
> Yes it it. In both cases the given information is the same DD.
>
>> HHH simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>> that simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)...
>>
>> HHH1 simulates DD that calls HHH(DD)
>> that returns to DD that returns to HHH1.
>> This is the same behavior as the directly
>> executed DD.
>>
>> The sound basis of this reasoning is the
>> semantics of the C programming language.
>
> None of above proves (or even claims) that DD is different from DD.
>
The execution context is different.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
We could pretend that DDD does not call HHH
or that DDD does call HHH1. The breaks from
reality.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-20 11:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways |
| Message-ID | <10fmlu0$2r94e$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136075 |
On 2025-11-19 12:59:19 +0000, olcott said:
> On 11/19/2025 3:46 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-11-18 16:43:32 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 11/18/2025 4:23 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-17 13:31:45 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/17/2025 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-17 00:12:14 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/16/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-15 16:12:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-14 15:00:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 15:50:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 12:54:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2025 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-11 13:04:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2025 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10 14:48:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-09 12:51:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-08 13:36:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/8/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-07 12:57:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06 20:48:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is merely a defect in H and irrelevanto to the semantic and other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a stupid statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid is better than false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is stupidly false because you didn't bother
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay any attention at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A statement about me is off topic in comp.theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that never reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated "return" statement final halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of D because D calls H(D) in recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you ever done any actual programming?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A question about me is off topic in comp.theory. But yes, I did yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is my key foundational point*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int H(char* P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above is in test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate.exe implements a C interpreter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runs the interpreter on the above source file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the command prompt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any program that does not correctly tell whether test.c halts is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider. A program that gives an incorrect answer is not even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a partial halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When this interpreter sees the call to H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it calls itself with the text body of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to C semanttics it should simulate H(D), either simultating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions of H or simulating the return from H(D) with the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned value as H(D) would return if executed, or do whatever H would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if H would not not return.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D) specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the behavour C semantics specifies. According to C semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other behavour that produces the same result is equally valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So D remains stuck in recursive simulation never being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to complete its first statement before calling H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again and again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that happens then H does not return and therefore is not a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe my work is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the definition of "decider" is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People here have consistently lied about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD simulated by HHH reaching its own "return"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement final halt state for three years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You yourself have not told the truth about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this even once.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems to confirm that the definition of "decider" is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am just talking at the level of the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of C functions. D does specify non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to its termination analyzer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The termination problem is not about specifying "to its termination
>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer". Instead the termination problem is to determine whether
>>>>>>>>>>>> a program terminates every time when used as it was designed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>> used.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem requires that a halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>> correctly report on the behavior of its caller
>>>>>>>>>>> and no halt decider can even see its actual caller.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every halt decider is required to report on the behaviour asked about.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And this is incorrect when it has not access to
>>>>>>>>> the behavior that it is asked about.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, it is not. The solution to the halting problem must include the
>>>>>>>> necessary access. Conversely, a proof that the necessary access is
>>>>>>>> impossible is sufficient to prove that halting problem is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Reporing on the behavior of DD() executed from
>>>>>>> main requires HHH to report on information
>>>>>>> that is not contained in its input thus it is
>>>>>>> incorrect to require HHH to report on that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That HHH fails to meet the requirements does not mean that the
>>>>>> requirements are wrong. It merely meas that HHH is not a halt
>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>
>>>>> That HHH fails to meet the requirements by itself does
>>>>> not mean that the requirements are wrong.
>>>>
>>>> But it does by itself mean that HHH is not a halt decider.
>>>
>>> (a) Halt deciders are required to report on the
>>> actual behavior that their actual input actually
>>> specifies.
>>
>> More often the input to halt deciders is required to specify the
>> actual behavour that the halt decder is required to report about.
>> But it is possible to formulate the problem either way withouth
>> any significant difference.
>
> Whenever the input to a halt decider does not
> call this same decider then P simulated by H
> has the same behavior as P() directly executed
> from main().
Even when a program calls H it specifies one and only one behaviour,
which is revealed by a "direct" execution of the program. If H is
unable to tell whether that behaviour can be continued beyond any
limit then H is not a halt decider. All of which follows from the
meanings of the words.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-17 07:31 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways |
| Message-ID | <10ff84e$s7dk$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135842 |
On 11/17/2025 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2025-11-17 00:12:14 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 11/16/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-15 16:12:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 11/15/2025 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-14 15:00:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 15:50:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 12:54:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2025 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-11 13:04:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2025 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10 14:48:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-09 12:51:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-08 13:36:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/8/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-07 12:57:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06 20:48:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is merely a defect in H and irrelevanto to the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantic and other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a stupid statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid is better than false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is stupidly false because you didn't bother
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay any attention at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A statement about me is off topic in comp.theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that never reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated "return" statement final halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of D because D calls H(D) in recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you ever done any actual programming?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A question about me is off topic in comp.theory. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, I did yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is my key foundational point*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int H(char* P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above is in test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate.exe implements a C interpreter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runs the interpreter on the above source file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the command prompt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any program that does not correctly tell whether test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider. A program that gives an incorrect answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a partial halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When this interpreter sees the call to H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it calls itself with the text body of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to C semanttics it should simulate H(D), either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simultating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions of H or simulating the return from H(D) with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned value as H(D) would return if executed, or do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever H would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if H would not not return.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D) specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the behavour C semantics specifies. According to C
>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other behavour that produces the same result is equally
>>>>>>>>>>>>> valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So D remains stuck in recursive simulation never being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to complete its first statement before calling H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again and again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that happens then H does not return and therefore is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe my work is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the definition of "decider" is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> People here have consistently lied about
>>>>>>>>>> DD simulated by HHH reaching its own "return"
>>>>>>>>>> statement final halt state for three years.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You yourself have not told the truth about
>>>>>>>>>> this even once.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That seems to confirm that the definition of "decider" is over
>>>>>>>>> your head.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am just talking at the level of the execution
>>>>>>>> trace of C functions. D does specify non-halting
>>>>>>>> behavior to its termination analyzer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The termination problem is not about specifying "to its termination
>>>>>>> analyzer". Instead the termination problem is to determine whether
>>>>>>> a program terminates every time when used as it was designed to be
>>>>>>> used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halting problem requires that a halt decider
>>>>>> correctly report on the behavior of its caller
>>>>>> and no halt decider can even see its actual caller.
>>>>>
>>>>> Every halt decider is required to report on the behaviour asked about.
>>>>
>>>> And this is incorrect when it has not access to
>>>> the behavior that it is asked about.
>>>
>>> No, it is not. The solution to the halting problem must include the
>>> necessary access. Conversely, a proof that the necessary access is
>>> impossible is sufficient to prove that halting problem is unsolvable.
>>
>> Reporing on the behavior of DD() executed from
>> main requires HHH to report on information
>> that is not contained in its input thus it is
>> incorrect to require HHH to report on that.
>
> That HHH fails to meet the requirements does not mean that the
> requirements are wrong. It merely meas that HHH is not a halt
> decider.
>
That HHH fails to meet the requirements by itself does
not mean that the requirements are wrong.
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.
That the information that HHH is required to report
on simply is not contained in its input is what makes
the requirements wrong.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 12:01 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways |
| Message-ID | <10g6j5r$9aql$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #135855 |
olcott kirjoitti 17.11.2025 klo 15.31:
> On 11/17/2025 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2025-11-17 00:12:14 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 11/16/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-15 16:12:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/15/2025 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-14 15:00:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 15:50:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 12:54:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2025 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-11 13:04:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2025 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10 14:48:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-09 12:51:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-08 13:36:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/8/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-07 12:57:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06 20:48:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is merely a defect in H and irrelevanto to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantic and other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a stupid statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid is better than false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is stupidly false because you didn't bother
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay any attention at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A statement about me is off topic in comp.theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that never reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated "return" statement final halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of D because D calls H(D) in recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you ever done any actual programming?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A question about me is off topic in comp.theory. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, I did yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is my key foundational point*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int H(char* P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above is in test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate.exe implements a C interpreter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runs the interpreter on the above source file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the command prompt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any program that does not correctly tell whether test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider. A program that gives an incorrect answer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a partial halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When this interpreter sees the call to H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it calls itself with the text body of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to C semanttics it should simulate H(D),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either simultating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions of H or simulating the return from H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned value as H(D) would return if executed, or do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever H would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if H would not not return.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D) specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the behavour C semantics specifies. According to C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other behavour that produces the same result is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equally valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So D remains stuck in recursive simulation never being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to complete its first statement before calling H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again and again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that happens then H does not return and therefore is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe my work is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the definition of "decider" is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> People here have consistently lied about
>>>>>>>>>>> DD simulated by HHH reaching its own "return"
>>>>>>>>>>> statement final halt state for three years.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You yourself have not told the truth about
>>>>>>>>>>> this even once.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That seems to confirm that the definition of "decider" is over
>>>>>>>>>> your head.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am just talking at the level of the execution
>>>>>>>>> trace of C functions. D does specify non-halting
>>>>>>>>> behavior to its termination analyzer.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The termination problem is not about specifying "to its termination
>>>>>>>> analyzer". Instead the termination problem is to determine whether
>>>>>>>> a program terminates every time when used as it was designed to be
>>>>>>>> used.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The halting problem requires that a halt decider
>>>>>>> correctly report on the behavior of its caller
>>>>>>> and no halt decider can even see its actual caller.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every halt decider is required to report on the behaviour asked
>>>>>> about.
>>>>>
>>>>> And this is incorrect when it has not access to
>>>>> the behavior that it is asked about.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is not. The solution to the halting problem must include the
>>>> necessary access. Conversely, a proof that the necessary access is
>>>> impossible is sufficient to prove that halting problem is unsolvable.
>>>
>>> Reporing on the behavior of DD() executed from
>>> main requires HHH to report on information
>>> that is not contained in its input thus it is
>>> incorrect to require HHH to report on that.
>>
>> That HHH fails to meet the requirements does not mean that the
>> requirements are wrong. It merely meas that HHH is not a halt
>> decider.
>>
>
> That HHH fails to meet the requirements by itself does
> not mean that the requirements are wrong.
>
> 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.
>
> That the information that HHH is required to report
> on simply is not contained in its input is what makes
> the requirements wrong.
No, it merely means that the designer ot HHH has failed to specify the
encoding rules so that the input contains the full specification of the
behaviour.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 09:17 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways |
| Message-ID | <10g75m9$gf3b$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136561 |
On 11/26/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
> olcott kirjoitti 17.11.2025 klo 15.31:
>> On 11/17/2025 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-17 00:12:14 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 11/16/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-15 16:12:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-14 15:00:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 15:50:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 12:54:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2025 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-11 13:04:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2025 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10 14:48:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-09 12:51:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-08 13:36:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/8/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-07 12:57:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06 20:48:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is merely a defect in H and irrelevanto to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantic and other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a stupid statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid is better than false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is stupidly false because you didn't bother
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay any attention at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A statement about me is off topic in comp.theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that never reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated "return" statement final halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of D because D calls H(D) in recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you ever done any actual programming?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A question about me is off topic in comp.theory. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, I did yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is my key foundational point*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int H(char* P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above is in test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate.exe implements a C interpreter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runs the interpreter on the above source file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the command prompt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any program that does not correctly tell whether test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halts is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider. A program that gives an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer is not even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a partial halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When this interpreter sees the call to H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it calls itself with the text body of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to C semanttics it should simulate H(D),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either simultating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions of H or simulating the return from H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned value as H(D) would return if executed, or do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever H would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if H would not not return.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D) specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the behavour C semantics specifies. According to C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other behavour that produces the same result is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equally valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So D remains stuck in recursive simulation never being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to complete its first statement before calling H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again and again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that happens then H does not return and therefore is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe my work is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the definition of "decider" is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> People here have consistently lied about
>>>>>>>>>>>> DD simulated by HHH reaching its own "return"
>>>>>>>>>>>> statement final halt state for three years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You yourself have not told the truth about
>>>>>>>>>>>> this even once.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That seems to confirm that the definition of "decider" is
>>>>>>>>>>> over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I am just talking at the level of the execution
>>>>>>>>>> trace of C functions. D does specify non-halting
>>>>>>>>>> behavior to its termination analyzer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The termination problem is not about specifying "to its
>>>>>>>>> termination
>>>>>>>>> analyzer". Instead the termination problem is to determine whether
>>>>>>>>> a program terminates every time when used as it was designed to be
>>>>>>>>> used.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The halting problem requires that a halt decider
>>>>>>>> correctly report on the behavior of its caller
>>>>>>>> and no halt decider can even see its actual caller.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every halt decider is required to report on the behaviour asked
>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And this is incorrect when it has not access to
>>>>>> the behavior that it is asked about.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is not. The solution to the halting problem must include the
>>>>> necessary access. Conversely, a proof that the necessary access is
>>>>> impossible is sufficient to prove that halting problem is unsolvable.
>>>>
>>>> Reporing on the behavior of DD() executed from
>>>> main requires HHH to report on information
>>>> that is not contained in its input thus it is
>>>> incorrect to require HHH to report on that.
>>>
>>> That HHH fails to meet the requirements does not mean that the
>>> requirements are wrong. It merely meas that HHH is not a halt
>>> decider.
>>>
>>
>> That HHH fails to meet the requirements by itself does
>> not mean that the requirements are wrong.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> That the information that HHH is required to report
>> on simply is not contained in its input is what makes
>> the requirements wrong.
>
> No, it merely means that the designer ot HHH has failed to specify the
> encoding rules so that the input contains the full specification of the
> behaviour.
>
In other words you are trying to get away with
disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
or the semantics of the C programing language.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 10:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways |
| Message-ID | <B1FVQ.45131$5c64.1874@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #136578 |
On 11/26/25 10:17 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/26/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> olcott kirjoitti 17.11.2025 klo 15.31:
>>> On 11/17/2025 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-17 00:12:14 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/16/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-15 16:12:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-14 15:00:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 15:50:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 12:54:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2025 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-11 13:04:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2025 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10 14:48:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-09 12:51:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-08 13:36:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/8/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-07 12:57:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06 20:48:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is merely a defect in H and irrelevanto to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the semantic and other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a stupid statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid is better than false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is stupidly false because you didn't bother
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay any attention at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A statement about me is off topic in comp.theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that never reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated "return" statement final halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of D because D calls H(D) in recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you ever done any actual programming?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A question about me is off topic in comp.theory. But
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yes, I did yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is my key foundational point*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int H(char* P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above is in test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate.exe implements a C interpreter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runs the interpreter on the above source file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the command prompt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any program that does not correctly tell whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> test.c halts is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider. A program that gives an incorrect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer is not even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a partial halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When this interpreter sees the call to H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it calls itself with the text body of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to C semanttics it should simulate H(D),
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> either simultating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions of H or simulating the return from H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned value as H(D) would return if executed, or do
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whatever H would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if H would not not return.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to H(D) specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This simulates D that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the behavour C semantics specifies. According to C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other behavour that produces the same result is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equally valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So D remains stuck in recursive simulation never being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to complete its first statement before calling H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again and again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that happens then H does not return and therefore is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe my work is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the definition of "decider" is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> People here have consistently lied about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD simulated by HHH reaching its own "return"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement final halt state for three years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You yourself have not told the truth about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> this even once.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems to confirm that the definition of "decider" is
>>>>>>>>>>>> over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am just talking at the level of the execution
>>>>>>>>>>> trace of C functions. D does specify non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to its termination analyzer.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The termination problem is not about specifying "to its
>>>>>>>>>> termination
>>>>>>>>>> analyzer". Instead the termination problem is to determine
>>>>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>>>> a program terminates every time when used as it was designed
>>>>>>>>>> to be
>>>>>>>>>> used.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The halting problem requires that a halt decider
>>>>>>>>> correctly report on the behavior of its caller
>>>>>>>>> and no halt decider can even see its actual caller.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Every halt decider is required to report on the behaviour asked
>>>>>>>> about.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And this is incorrect when it has not access to
>>>>>>> the behavior that it is asked about.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it is not. The solution to the halting problem must include the
>>>>>> necessary access. Conversely, a proof that the necessary access is
>>>>>> impossible is sufficient to prove that halting problem is unsolvable.
>>>>>
>>>>> Reporing on the behavior of DD() executed from
>>>>> main requires HHH to report on information
>>>>> that is not contained in its input thus it is
>>>>> incorrect to require HHH to report on that.
>>>>
>>>> That HHH fails to meet the requirements does not mean that the
>>>> requirements are wrong. It merely meas that HHH is not a halt
>>>> decider.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That HHH fails to meet the requirements by itself does
>>> not mean that the requirements are wrong.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> That the information that HHH is required to report
>>> on simply is not contained in its input is what makes
>>> the requirements wrong.
>>
>> No, it merely means that the designer ot HHH has failed to specify the
>> encoding rules so that the input contains the full specification of the
>> behaviour.
>>
>
> In other words you are trying to get away with
> disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
> or the semantics of the C programing language.
>
No, you are, as you think a call instruction doesn't go into the
function called, and that a correct simulation of it might differ from
the behavior that the actual x86 does.
Sorry, You "proof" need to lie, under the excuse that the details are
too complicated, as you can't show what you want without lying.
THe fact that D, when run, halts says your simulation is just incorrect.
Your logic is based on being able to have two programs being the "same"
code, even though they do different things.
H can't both abort and not abort at the same time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 18:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways |
| Message-ID | <20251126103451.940@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136578 |
On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > In other words you are trying to get away with > disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language > or the semantics of the C programing language. Says the pitiful twit who has no meaningful response to results shown with code. -- 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 | 2025-11-26 13:55 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways |
| Message-ID | <10g7lv2$njp7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136596 |
On 11/26/2025 12:35 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> In other words you are trying to get away with >> disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language >> or the semantics of the C programing language. > > Says the pitiful twit who has no meaningful response to results shown > with code. > I am not the one that came up with the jackass idea of restarting a simulation after it has already conclusively proved that it cannot possibly halt. news://news.eternal-september.org/20251104183329.967@kylheku.com On 11/4/2025 8:43 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2025-11-05, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The whole point is that D simulated by H >> cannot possbly reach its own simulated >> "return" statement no matter what H does. > > Yes; this doesn't happen while H is running. > > So while H does /something/, no matter what H does, > that D simulation won't reach the return statement. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott My 28 year goal has been to make "true on the basis of meaning" computable. This required establishing a new foundation for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 14:58 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways |
| Message-ID | <10g7m5s$mhag$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136603 |
On 11/26/2025 2:55 PM, olcott wrote: > On 11/26/2025 12:35 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> In other words you are trying to get away with >>> disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language >>> or the semantics of the C programing language. >> >> Says the pitiful twit who has no meaningful response to results shown >> with code. >> > > I am not the one that came up with the jackass idea > of restarting a simulation after it has already > conclusively proved that it cannot possibly halt. That the continuation of the simulation reaches a final halting state conclusively proves otherwise.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 21:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways |
| Message-ID | <20251126134708.468@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136604 |
On 2025-11-26, dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/26/2025 2:55 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 11/26/2025 12:35 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> In other words you are trying to get away with >>>> disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language >>>> or the semantics of the C programing language. >>> >>> Says the pitiful twit who has no meaningful response to results shown >>> with code. >>> >> >> I am not the one that came up with the jackass idea >> of restarting a simulation after it has already >> conclusively proved that it cannot possibly halt. > > That the continuation of the simulation reaches a final halting state > conclusively proves otherwise. And Olcott has no idea how to fix it and is no longer able to engage with tasks involving code. -- 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 | 2025-11-26 15:53 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways |
| Message-ID | <10g7ss1$qbil$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136608 |
On 11/26/2025 3:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-26, dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/26/2025 2:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 11/26/2025 12:35 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with
>>>>> disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
>>>>> or the semantics of the C programing language.
>>>>
>>>> Says the pitiful twit who has no meaningful response to results shown
>>>> with code.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am not the one that came up with the jackass idea
>>> of restarting a simulation after it has already
>>> conclusively proved that it cannot possibly halt.
>>
>> That the continuation of the simulation reaches a final halting state
>> conclusively proves otherwise.
>
> And Olcott has no idea how to fix it and is no longer
> able to engage with tasks involving code.
>
void Infinite_Loop()
{
HERE: goto HERE;
return;
}
And the continuation of the simulation
at the "return" statement "proves"
by deception that infinite loops halt.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 22:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways |
| Message-ID | <20251126141918.86@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #136611 |
On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/26/2025 3:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-26, dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/26/2025 2:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 11/26/2025 12:35 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with
>>>>>> disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
>>>>>> or the semantics of the C programing language.
>>>>>
>>>>> Says the pitiful twit who has no meaningful response to results shown
>>>>> with code.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am not the one that came up with the jackass idea
>>>> of restarting a simulation after it has already
>>>> conclusively proved that it cannot possibly halt.
>>>
>>> That the continuation of the simulation reaches a final halting state
>>> conclusively proves otherwise.
>>
>> And Olcott has no idea how to fix it and is no longer
>> able to engage with tasks involving code.
>>
>
> void Infinite_Loop()
> {
> HERE: goto HERE;
> return;
> }
>
> And the continuation of the simulation
> at the "return" statement "proves"
> by deception that infinite loops halt.
I have no idea what you are blabbing about, and neither do you.
--
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 | 2025-11-26 16:48 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways |
| Message-ID | <10g804j$rqms$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136613 |
On 11/26/2025 4:19 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 11/26/2025 3:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>> On 2025-11-26, dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 11/26/2025 2:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 11/26/2025 12:35 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with
>>>>>>> disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
>>>>>>> or the semantics of the C programing language.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Says the pitiful twit who has no meaningful response to results shown
>>>>>> with code.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not the one that came up with the jackass idea
>>>>> of restarting a simulation after it has already
>>>>> conclusively proved that it cannot possibly halt.
>>>>
>>>> That the continuation of the simulation reaches a final halting state
>>>> conclusively proves otherwise.
>>>
>>> And Olcott has no idea how to fix it and is no longer
>>> able to engage with tasks involving code.
>>>
>>
>> void Infinite_Loop()
>> {
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> And the continuation of the simulation
>> at the "return" statement "proves"
>> by deception that infinite loops halt.
>
> I have no idea what you are blabbing about, and neither do you.
>
We could simulate Infinite_Loop() until it
proves that it cannot possibly stop running
unless aborted, then abort it. Now to use
your method we can "resume" the simulation
at a different machine state.
This simulation is "resumed" at the "return"
instruction. This "proves" that Infinite_Loop()
can reach its "return" instruction thus never
really needed to be aborted.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-11-26 18:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways |
| Message-ID | <10g80pj$ovei$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136614 |
On 11/26/2025 5:48 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/26/2025 4:19 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 11/26/2025 3:47 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>> On 2025-11-26, dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/26/2025 2:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 12:35 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2025-11-26, olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with
>>>>>>>> disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
>>>>>>>> or the semantics of the C programing language.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Says the pitiful twit who has no meaningful response to results
>>>>>>> shown
>>>>>>> with code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not the one that came up with the jackass idea
>>>>>> of restarting a simulation after it has already
>>>>>> conclusively proved that it cannot possibly halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> That the continuation of the simulation reaches a final halting state
>>>>> conclusively proves otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> And Olcott has no idea how to fix it and is no longer
>>>> able to engage with tasks involving code.
>>>>
>>>
>>> void Infinite_Loop()
>>> {
>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>> return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> And the continuation of the simulation
>>> at the "return" statement "proves"
>>> by deception that infinite loops halt.
>>
>> I have no idea what you are blabbing about, and neither do you.
>>
>
> We could simulate Infinite_Loop() until it
> proves that it cannot possibly stop running
> unless aborted, then abort it. Now to use
> your method we can "resume" the simulation
> at a different machine state.
False. We would resume the simulation of Infinite_Loop at the same
machine state (which doesn't include the simulator) and the resumption
would not halt.
In contract, we can resume the simulation of DD at the same machine
state (which again doesn't include the the simulator) and the resumption
has been shown to halt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 32 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 32 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web