Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #38464 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-08-28 11:47 -0500 |
| Last post | 2021-08-28 20:00 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 733 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 11:47 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 14:52 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 14:12 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 16:24 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 15:33 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 16:46 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 16:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 18:29 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 17:38 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 17:38 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 19:32 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 18:46 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 18:51 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 20:07 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 23:00 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 07:00 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 08:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-29 16:20 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 10:30 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-29 17:19 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 11:36 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-30 01:00 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 20:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-31 03:17 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 21:35 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-31 04:04 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 22:20 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-30 21:35 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 23:00 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-30 22:19 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 23:31 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-30 22:45 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 09:24 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 09:07 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 11:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 11:11 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 10:31 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 11:49 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 11:00 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 12:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 12:40 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 14:11 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 14:08 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 16:34 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 16:40 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 18:29 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 17:39 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 19:16 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 20:47 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 18:52 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 21:23 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-31 14:17 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 16:48 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 19:26 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 21:08 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 19:23 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 06:35 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-31 14:55 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 09:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 20:59 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-01 03:28 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 21:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-08-31 23:05 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 11:22 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 12:43 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 12:06 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 15:42 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-28 18:42 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 22:52 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-28 22:07 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 23:13 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-28 22:32 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ dishonesty ? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 23:27 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ dishonesty ? ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-28 22:34 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ dishonesty ? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 23:50 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ dishonesty ? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 08:20 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 13:53 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 13:32 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 14:40 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 13:48 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 14:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 16:42 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 16:16 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 18:35 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 20:39 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 21:52 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 19:54 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 21:14 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 22:35 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 20:38 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 21:51 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 21:00 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 22:17 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 21:43 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 22:54 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-30 06:24 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 09:02 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-30 20:13 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-31 03:12 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 21:30 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-31 03:53 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 22:11 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 06:38 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-31 15:04 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 09:30 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 21:03 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-01 03:45 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 22:09 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 22:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-09-01 07:51 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 21:47 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 23:10 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 22:26 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 23:32 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 22:52 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 08:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 08:54 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 09:13 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 19:04 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 02:19 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 08:27 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 19:06 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-02 02:40 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 09:15 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 16:19 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 10:34 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 22:02 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 18:12 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 22:00 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 16:46 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 18:41 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 17:54 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 19:02 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-04 16:25 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 22:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-05 13:02 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 15:13 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 17:36 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Mike <usenet@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-05 23:37 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-09-05 20:16 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 09:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-09-06 11:06 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 10:26 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 12:04 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 14:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 14:22 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 15:50 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 15:37 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 16:59 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 16:58 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 18:21 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 17:39 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 18:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:04 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 18:13 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 19:46 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 19:07 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 20:32 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 20:23 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 21:30 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 21:34 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 21:49 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 22:08 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 23:35 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 23:36 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 08:51 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 08:14 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 09:26 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-07 08:18 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 10:34 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 19:04 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 09:39 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 11:02 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 10:46 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 12:01 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 12:14 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 13:17 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 13:39 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 14:49 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 15:07 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 19:06 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 19:16 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 18:46 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 20:49 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 05:59 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 09:13 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 19:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 18:38 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 20:52 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 06:40 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 06:30 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-09-06 21:47 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-09-06 21:31 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 22:32 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 21:31 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 19:56 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 19:39 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 19:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 21:38 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 20:50 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 20:53 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 22:52 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 21:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 23:37 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:46 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 06:04 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 11:10 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 09:00 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 16:30 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 10:45 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 19:11 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 18:44 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 20:55 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 01:25 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 19:39 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 21:01 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 03:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 19:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 18:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 21:03 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 22:48 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 21:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 23:06 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:14 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 23:45 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:51 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 06:10 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 09:26 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 09:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 11:21 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 00:09 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 23:27 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 16:33 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 10:52 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 13:03 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 19:48 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 14:05 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 23:46 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 10:00 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 11:22 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 21:24 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 16:06 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 19:10 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 18:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:10 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-02 09:10 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 11:32 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 21:38 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 06:42 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-01 15:34 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-01 08:45 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 09:52 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 19:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 06:38 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 06:21 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-01 15:44 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 10:05 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 19:43 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 01:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 20:34 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 02:42 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 21:18 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 22:34 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Pathological Input ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 21:53 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Pathological Input ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-01 22:56 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Pathological Input ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 00:09 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Pathological Input ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-01 23:48 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Pathological Input ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 10:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Pathological Input ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 06:17 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 12:28 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 10:23 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 22:00 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 18:20 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-02 17:46 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 19:01 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-02 18:20 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 19:32 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-02 19:10 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 22:21 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 01:27 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 19:40 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 02:05 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 20:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 02:29 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 20:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 22:24 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 21:26 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 22:54 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 21:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 23:15 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 03:42 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 21:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 23:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 22:18 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 23:52 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 23:09 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-02 22:59 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:05 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 12:49 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 15:11 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 16:58 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 16:23 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 17:31 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 06:32 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-03 04:47 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 14:41 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:20 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 15:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 08:51 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 08:09 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:24 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 08:33 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:46 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 09:12 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 10:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 09:43 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 15:01 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 14:24 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 15:31 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 14:58 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 16:18 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 17:43 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 15:46 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 17:14 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 18:46 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 17:00 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 18:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-09-03 17:45 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 22:36 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 17:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 00:02 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 19:03 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 01:20 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 19:27 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 21:10 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 20:36 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 22:07 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 22:30 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-03 23:12 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 08:45 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 10:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 09:49 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 11:22 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 10:32 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 11:54 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 11:21 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 12:40 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 12:01 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 13:21 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 12:41 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 14:08 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 13:14 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 14:28 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 13:52 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 21:56 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 18:34 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 19:13 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-04 02:05 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 20:31 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 20:51 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 15:06 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 22:00 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 17:55 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 20:49 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Mike <usenet@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-05 03:59 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-09-04 12:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-09-04 13:59 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 21:26 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 16:13 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 22:37 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 16:27 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 15:36 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 17:06 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 11:41 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 14:52 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 16:11 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 11:47 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 11:34 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 10:39 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 11:51 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:09 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 12:01 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 15:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 10:02 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 16:18 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 12:02 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 21:16 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 03:47 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 21:56 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-09-02 22:29 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 15:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 10:01 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 16:16 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 10:30 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 16:50 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 14:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 16:34 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 15:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 17:50 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 22:40 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 17:27 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 01:07 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 19:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 11:57 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 11:26 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 12:42 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 12:05 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 13:27 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 12:44 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 14:11 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 13:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 15:11 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 14:47 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 16:17 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 17:36 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 18:47 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 18:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 20:14 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 23:02 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 06:40 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 00:34 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 22:58 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 06:44 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 16:22 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 10:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 17:24 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 11:48 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 12:16 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 13:21 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 12:34 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 14:26 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 13:50 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 15:32 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 20:48 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 15:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 17:45 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 00:14 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 10:15 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 09:30 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 11:07 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 10:17 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 14:14 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 14:15 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 15:38 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 15:28 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 16:41 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 16:53 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-07 02:55 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 21:07 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:17 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:13 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 12:25 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 14:20 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:23 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 20:26 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 14:31 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 20:59 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 15:56 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 22:03 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 17:07 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 19:20 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 01:24 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 19:17 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 18:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 17:55 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 19:37 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 19:01 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 20:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 21:23 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 19:33 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 20:45 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 21:19 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:37 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-07 16:50 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 11:04 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 11:09 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 10:41 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 11:59 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 11:55 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 13:15 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 23:26 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 17:38 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 01:52 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 20:12 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-08 02:26 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 20:45 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 21:52 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 21:11 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 22:22 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 11:32 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 21:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 16:18 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 23:55 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 18:32 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 01:40 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 19:49 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 02:09 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 20:40 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 02:57 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 21:17 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 22:56 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:05 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 23:51 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:59 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 06:28 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 11:54 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 09:07 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 16:31 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 10:51 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 01:42 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 20:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 21:12 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 20:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 21:55 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 21:18 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 22:27 -0400
H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 21:53 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 21:09 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 22:18 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 00:14 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 09:20 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 08:48 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 11:26 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 17:49 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 14:09 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 21:42 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 15:49 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 23:11 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 17:36 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 01:21 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 19:41 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 21:18 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:21 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:05 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 22:09 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:31 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 02:54 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:07 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 12:02 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 08:59 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 16:32 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 10:46 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 23:29 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 17:50 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 19:23 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-10 03:19 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 21:36 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-10 10:37 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-10 08:43 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-10 21:42 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-10 16:30 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-10 16:10 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-10 17:38 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-10 17:07 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-10 18:20 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-10 22:09 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-10 22:03 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-10 22:00 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 21:26 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 21:23 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 20:22 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 11:59 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 13:12 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 12:58 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 14:13 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 14:33 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 14:02 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 15:41 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 15:27 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 17:00 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 16:20 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 17:34 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 19:57 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 19:17 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 21:23 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:23 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:12 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 19:21 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:02 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:14 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 22:25 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:37 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 23:16 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 06:58 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 09:09 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 21:41 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-10 10:00 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-10 09:20 -0700
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-10 11:35 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-10 21:55 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-11 08:57 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-11 16:21 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-11 16:16 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-11 17:35 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-11 17:14 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-11 18:44 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-11 17:53 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-11 19:05 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-11 18:14 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-11 19:41 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-11 22:53 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 06:33 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 08:43 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 09:47 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 12:00 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 11:20 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 12:31 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 11:51 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:00 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 12:28 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:36 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 12:47 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:52 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 13:20 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 15:08 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 14:35 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( SUMMATION ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:44 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( SUMMATION ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 15:14 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( SUMMATION ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 13:18 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( SUMMATION ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 15:24 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 13:57 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:01 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 14:12 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:16 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 14:26 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:34 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 15:00 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 14:30 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 12:37 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:51 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 15:17 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 13:19 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 13:44 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 12:48 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 12:41 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 12:18 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 23:16 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider ... Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-09-09 10:21 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 08:34 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-09 15:08 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 17:15 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-09 17:18 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 18:31 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 21:47 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 19:54 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 19:51 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 19:48 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 19:46 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 19:01 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 20:25 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 19:09 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 20:17 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 21:32 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:33 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:20 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 22:30 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:50 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 23:10 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 07:05 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 09:16 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 16:05 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 10:25 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 16:41 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 10:51 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 23:29 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 19:30 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 18:50 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 20:38 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 19:46 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 22:25 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 22:19 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 22:05 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 20:17 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 07:15 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 07:04 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 09:39 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 20:01 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 22:33 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 03:55 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 22:07 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 07:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 15:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 14:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 21:42 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 15:53 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 23:52 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 18:10 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 20:11 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 01:21 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 19:37 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 21:30 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:25 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 02:54 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:14 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:29 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 22:39 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:48 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 23:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 07:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 09:18 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 20:53 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 12:02 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 08:47 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 16:18 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 10:31 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 23:29 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 21:14 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 20:29 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 21:02 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:54 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-09-05 12:34 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 22:22 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 16:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 00:09 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 23:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 06:58 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 17:12 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 11:40 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 12:51 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 20:38 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 22:49 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 22:35 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 21:50 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 23:04 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 22:17 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 23:53 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-30 00:54 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 15:45 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 20:00 -0400
Page 25 of 37 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25] 26 27 … 37 Next page →
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-07 11:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <sYGdnd_A9-bFB6r8nZ2dnUU78eednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #39072 |
On 9/7/2021 11:41 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-09-07 10:09, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/7/2021 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/7/2021 10:50 AM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 06/09/2021 20:26, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2021-09-06 09:15, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/5/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't understand operating system process context switching.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Change the subject. Good plan!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not changing the subject. I am enumerating the key prerequisite
>>>>>>> knowledge that you are lacking, to understand what I am saying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And why on earth would process context switching have any
>>>>>> relevance at
>>>>>> all to a halt decider which uses a series of nested simulations?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above just reinforces my belief that your decider does *not* work
>>>>>> the way you describe it. There are no 'nested simulations'
>>>>>> involved. Of course, since we can't see your code, we have no option
>>>>>> but to guess...
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I'm with you here. I don't think there is any nested simulation
>>>>> going on. The traces don't show any -- they show calls -- and I
>>>>> suspect
>>>>> the code is being hidden simply because it's so obviously wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I made a post recently about how I think PO has implemented his
>>>> emulation:
>>>>
>>>> message-id: <hb2dnTNZFYoJW6v8nZ2dnUU78avNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
>>>> (around 01:55 UCT)
>>>>
>>>> If correct, they are not calls, more like cooperative multithreading
>>>> or perhaps fibre switches combined with a single-step instruction
>>>> for x86utm.exe to switch back after just one instruction. Well,
>>>> let's just say that's not how I would have implemented it. (Or
>>>> imagined anyone else would do so...)
>>>>
>>>> Mike.
>>>>
>>>
>>> {cooperative multi-threading} seems quite apt.
>>>
>>>
>> It is more of a master / slave (Debug-step) relationship because the
>> slave can't possibly refuse to cooperate.
>
> Neither of which is the same as 'simulation'.
>
>
Yes of course we all know that x86 emulation is as much different from
simulation as feeding your cat is to constructing an office building.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-07 11:55 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <sh8927$r8d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39074 |
On 2021-09-07 10:59, olcott wrote:
> On 9/7/2021 11:41 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-09-07 10:09, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/7/2021 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> {cooperative multi-threading} seems quite apt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> It is more of a master / slave (Debug-step) relationship because the
>>> slave can't possibly refuse to cooperate.
>>
>> Neither of which is the same as 'simulation'.
>>
>>
>
> Yes of course we all know that x86 emulation is as much different from
> simulation as feeding your cat is to constructing an office building.
Sure, x86 emulation is a form of simulation. But neither cooperative
multithreading nor running in debug-step mode involve x86 emulation.
André
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-07 13:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <maidney9GuDTMar8nZ2dnUU7-TPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #39076 |
On 9/7/2021 12:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-09-07 10:59, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/7/2021 11:41 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-09-07 10:09, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/7/2021 11:04 AM, olcott wrote:
>
>>>>> {cooperative multi-threading} seems quite apt.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It is more of a master / slave (Debug-step) relationship because the
>>>> slave can't possibly refuse to cooperate.
>>>
>>> Neither of which is the same as 'simulation'.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes of course we all know that x86 emulation is as much different from
>> simulation as feeding your cat is to constructing an office building.
>
> Sure, x86 emulation is a form of simulation. But neither cooperative
> multithreading nor running in debug-step mode involve x86 emulation.
>
> André
>
Yes and it is utterly impossible to emulate x86 code in debug step mode.
This is the very well known x86 emulator debug step fallacy.
It would be far easier to talk your cat into transforming itself into an
office building than it would be to cause an x86 emulator to emulate one
instruction at a time in debug step mode.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-07 23:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <87eea0f2e2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #39065 |
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: > I made a post recently about how I think PO has implemented his emulation: > > message-id: <hb2dnTNZFYoJW6v8nZ2dnUU78avNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> > (around 01:55 UCT) > > If correct, they are not calls, more like cooperative multithreading > or perhaps fibre switches combined with a single-step instruction for > x86utm.exe to switch back after just one instruction. Well, let's > just say that's not how I would have implemented it. (Or imagined > anyone else would do so...) Yes, I saw that. It seems a reasonable guess and it fits with a sketch he once posted of how Halts works -- the famous Halts is correct because of what would happen if line 15 were commented out. A very clear explanation of his POOH problem. I wonder how PO has managed to keep people speculating about his hidden code for so long. Realistically, the response should be "post it", repeated endlessly until he either gets board and goes away or he posts it and we can finally see what he's doing wrong. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-07 17:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <fsOdnUc_ZNtndKr8nZ2dnUU7-IHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #39083 |
On 9/7/2021 5:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: > >> I made a post recently about how I think PO has implemented his emulation: >> >> message-id: <hb2dnTNZFYoJW6v8nZ2dnUU78avNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> >> (around 01:55 UCT) >> >> If correct, they are not calls, more like cooperative multithreading >> or perhaps fibre switches combined with a single-step instruction for >> x86utm.exe to switch back after just one instruction. Well, let's >> just say that's not how I would have implemented it. (Or imagined >> anyone else would do so...) > > Yes, I saw that. It seems a reasonable guess and it fits with a sketch > he once posted of how Halts works -- the famous Halts is correct because > of what would happen if line 15 were commented out. A very clear > explanation of his POOH problem. > You already acknowledged that my criteria is a halt decider: You already acknowledged that my criteria is a halt decider: You already acknowledged that my criteria is a halt decider: You already acknowledged that my criteria is a halt decider: You already acknowledged that my criteria is a halt decider: On 5/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> Truism: >> Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops >> it at some point specifies infinite execution. > > Any algorithm that implements this truism is, of course, a halting > decider. > I wonder how PO has managed to keep people speculating about his hidden > code for so long. People that actually understand the internals of operating systems left the group. > Realistically, the response should be "post it", > repeated endlessly until he either gets board and goes away or he posts > it and we can finally see what he's doing wrong. > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-08 01:52 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <87wnnrevnm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #39084 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 9/7/2021 5:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: >> >>> I made a post recently about how I think PO has implemented his emulation: >>> >>> message-id: <hb2dnTNZFYoJW6v8nZ2dnUU78avNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> >>> (around 01:55 UCT) >>> >>> If correct, they are not calls, more like cooperative multithreading >>> or perhaps fibre switches combined with a single-step instruction for >>> x86utm.exe to switch back after just one instruction. Well, let's >>> just say that's not how I would have implemented it. (Or imagined >>> anyone else would do so...) >> >> Yes, I saw that. It seems a reasonable guess and it fits with a sketch >> he once posted of how Halts works -- the famous Halts is correct because >> of what would happen if line 15 were commented out. A very clear >> explanation of his POOH problem. > > You already acknowledged that my criteria is a halt decider: Already! I was the one who told you! You didn't realise what you were claiming it when you first suggested your "decidability decider". In fact, I'm still not sure you understand. If you had what you claim, there would be no need for you to define you POOH problem -- you'd have a proper halt decider, not one for the PO Other Halting problem. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-07 20:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <NoGdnWlMTsd6kKX8nZ2dnUU7-SXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #39100 |
On 9/7/2021 7:52 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 9/7/2021 5:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: >>> >>>> I made a post recently about how I think PO has implemented his emulation: >>>> >>>> message-id: <hb2dnTNZFYoJW6v8nZ2dnUU78avNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> >>>> (around 01:55 UCT) >>>> >>>> If correct, they are not calls, more like cooperative multithreading >>>> or perhaps fibre switches combined with a single-step instruction for >>>> x86utm.exe to switch back after just one instruction. Well, let's >>>> just say that's not how I would have implemented it. (Or imagined >>>> anyone else would do so...) >>> >>> Yes, I saw that. It seems a reasonable guess and it fits with a sketch >>> he once posted of how Halts works -- the famous Halts is correct because >>> of what would happen if line 15 were commented out. A very clear >>> explanation of his POOH problem. >> >> You already acknowledged that my criteria is a halt decider: > > Already! I was the one who told you! You didn't realise what you were > claiming it when you first suggested your "decidability decider". In > fact, I'm still not sure you understand. If you had what you claim, > there would be no need for you to define you POOH problem -- you'd have > a proper halt decider, not one for the PO Other Halting problem. On 5/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> Truism: >> Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops >> it at some point specifies infinite execution. > > Any algorithm that implements this truism is, of course, a halting > decider. This has been my criteria since far longer than you agreed to it: This has been my criteria since far longer than you agreed to it: This has been my criteria since far longer than you agreed to it: This has been my criteria since far longer than you agreed to it: This has been my criteria since far longer than you agreed to it: Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops it at some point specifies infinite execution. Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops it at some point specifies infinite execution. Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops it at some point specifies infinite execution. Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops it at some point specifies infinite execution. Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops it at some point specifies infinite execution. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-08 02:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <ou2dnbs-_L23jKX8nZ2dnUU78Q_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #39083 |
On 07/09/2021 23:26, Ben Bacarisse wrote:> Mike Terry
<news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>
>> I made a post recently about how I think PO has implemented his
emulation:
>>
>> message-id: <hb2dnTNZFYoJW6v8nZ2dnUU78avNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
>> (around 01:55 UCT)
>>
>> If correct, they are not calls, more like cooperative multithreading
>> or perhaps fibre switches combined with a single-step instruction for
>> x86utm.exe to switch back after just one instruction. Well, let's
>> just say that's not how I would have implemented it. (Or imagined
>> anyone else would do so...)
>
> Yes, I saw that. It seems a reasonable guess and it fits with a sketch
> he once posted of how Halts works -- the famous Halts is correct because
> of what would happen if line 15 were commented out. A very clear
> explanation of his POOH problem.
Well, not so clear if we try to define it for an arbitrary input (P,I)
I'd say. Probably we could make some arbitrary judgements to come up
with some mathematically rigorous definition, but I suspect it would be
uninteresting. [The problem is going to be "how exactly should an
arbitrary program P, and arbitrary input data I be mapped to new inputs
P2, I2 as part of POOH? PO is rather keen on "definition by example"
which isn't actually what definitions are.]
>
> I wonder how PO has managed to keep people speculating about his hidden
> code for so long. Realistically, the response should be "post it",
> repeated endlessly until he either gets board and goes away or he posts
> it and we can finally see what he's doing wrong.
>
I think this isn't a Vulcan logic question, more of personal needs of
the posters - they /want/ PO to continue posting because they get
something from constantly responding. Which is fine, but it makes it
nigh-on impossible to act together to force particular behaviours from
PO, like publishing his code.
And is PO's code important? Surely we know PO's mistakes without seeing
his code. Seeing the code wouldn't make any difference in explaining
his mistakes to him - I imagine his code at least does what /he/ thinks
it ought to do, and everyone has explained to him over and over where
the problems are with that. I think all we'd get from actually seeing
the code is:
a) confirmation that PO can write C code, but he's not a good
programmer, and he's a worse systems architect/designer
b) we'd see /exactly/ how his tracing is implemented, and tell him
"why did you do it that way - that's rubbish, and makes
your decider a non-computation (or not...)" but no
big deal. (And we already know roughly how it's done.)
c) confirm that there are all sorts of simple programs for which
his code gets the wrong answer - or more likely loops without
ever deciding - with no prospect of it being a more general
halt decider. But it only has to deal with
one specific scenario - the H_Hat(H_Hat) computation, so
that's not a big deal.
d) someone could code up "proper" test cases and traces, except
that now that PO has admitted that main() calling
H_Hat(H_Hat) /does/ halt, that will no longer advance anything.
(But people may enjoy fiddling with the code for fun anyway.)
I feel that by now I could write something almost exactly equivalent to
PO's efforts if I had to, and I expect that if PO published his code I
would be completely unsurprised by what I saw! So it wouldn't be one of
my goals to work at persuading PO to publish the code, although I would
be curious enough to look at it and maybe play a bit.
Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-07 20:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <ztCdnR-Zrdc1iKX8nZ2dnUU7-efNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #39109 |
On 9/7/2021 8:26 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 07/09/2021 23:26, Ben Bacarisse wrote:> Mike Terry
> <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
> >
> >> I made a post recently about how I think PO has implemented his
> emulation:
> >>
> >> message-id: <hb2dnTNZFYoJW6v8nZ2dnUU78avNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
> >> (around 01:55 UCT)
> >>
> >> If correct, they are not calls, more like cooperative multithreading
> >> or perhaps fibre switches combined with a single-step instruction for
> >> x86utm.exe to switch back after just one instruction. Well, let's
> >> just say that's not how I would have implemented it. (Or imagined
> >> anyone else would do so...)
> >
> > Yes, I saw that. It seems a reasonable guess and it fits with a sketch
> > he once posted of how Halts works -- the famous Halts is correct because
> > of what would happen if line 15 were commented out. A very clear
> > explanation of his POOH problem.
> Well, not so clear if we try to define it for an arbitrary input (P,I)
> I'd say. Probably we could make some arbitrary judgements to come up
> with some mathematically rigorous definition, but I suspect it would be
> uninteresting. [The problem is going to be "how exactly should an
> arbitrary program P, and arbitrary input data I be mapped to new inputs
> P2, I2 as part of POOH? PO is rather keen on "definition by example"
> which isn't actually what definitions are.]
>
> >
> > I wonder how PO has managed to keep people speculating about his hidden
> > code for so long. Realistically, the response should be "post it",
> > repeated endlessly until he either gets board and goes away or he posts
> > it and we can finally see what he's doing wrong.
> >
> I think this isn't a Vulcan logic question, more of personal needs of
> the posters - they /want/ PO to continue posting because they get
> something from constantly responding. Which is fine, but it makes it
> nigh-on impossible to act together to force particular behaviours from
> PO, like publishing his code.
>
> And is PO's code important? Surely we know PO's mistakes without seeing
> his code. Seeing the code wouldn't make any difference in explaining
> his mistakes to him - I imagine his code at least does what /he/ thinks
> it ought to do, and everyone has explained to him over and over where
> the problems are with that. I think all we'd get from actually seeing
> the code is:
>
> a) confirmation that PO can write C code, but he's not a good
> programmer, and he's a worse systems architect/designer
> b) we'd see /exactly/ how his tracing is implemented, and tell him
> "why did you do it that way - that's rubbish, and makes
> your decider a non-computation (or not...)" but no
> big deal. (And we already know roughly how it's done.)
> c) confirm that there are all sorts of simple programs for which
> his code gets the wrong answer - or more likely loops without
> ever deciding - with no prospect of it being a more general
> halt decider. But it only has to deal with
> one specific scenario - the H_Hat(H_Hat) computation, so
> that's not a big deal.
Its only purpose was to get the right answer in the impossible case.
I don't have 10,000 man-years to get the right answer in ever case.
> d) someone could code up "proper" test cases and traces, except
> that now that PO has admitted that main() calling
> H_Hat(H_Hat) /does/ halt, that will no longer advance anything.
> (But people may enjoy fiddling with the code for fun anyway.)
>
// Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
// Strachey(1965) CPL translated to C
void P(u32 x)
{
if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}
// This gets the right answer
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H1((u32)P, (u32)P));
}
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
if the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
if the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the right answer.
> I feel that by now I could write something almost exactly equivalent to
> PO's efforts if I had to, and I expect that if PO published his code I
> would be completely unsurprised by what I saw! So it wouldn't be one of
> my goals to work at persuading PO to publish the code, although I would
> be curious enough to look at it and maybe play a bit.
>
>
> Mike.
>
So you could write a Linz H that correctly decides ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ?
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-07 21:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <DHUZI.147$ol1.32@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #39111 |
On 9/7/21 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/7/2021 8:26 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 07/09/2021 23:26, Ben Bacarisse wrote:> Mike Terry
>> <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>> >
>> >> I made a post recently about how I think PO has implemented his
>> emulation:
>> >>
>> >> message-id: <hb2dnTNZFYoJW6v8nZ2dnUU78avNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
>> >> (around 01:55 UCT)
>> >>
>> >> If correct, they are not calls, more like cooperative multithreading
>> >> or perhaps fibre switches combined with a single-step instruction for
>> >> x86utm.exe to switch back after just one instruction. Well, let's
>> >> just say that's not how I would have implemented it. (Or imagined
>> >> anyone else would do so...)
>> >
>> > Yes, I saw that. It seems a reasonable guess and it fits with a
>> sketch
>> > he once posted of how Halts works -- the famous Halts is correct
>> because
>> > of what would happen if line 15 were commented out. A very clear
>> > explanation of his POOH problem.
>> Well, not so clear if we try to define it for an arbitrary input (P,I)
>> I'd say. Probably we could make some arbitrary judgements to come up
>> with some mathematically rigorous definition, but I suspect it would
>> be uninteresting. [The problem is going to be "how exactly should an
>> arbitrary program P, and arbitrary input data I be mapped to new
>> inputs P2, I2 as part of POOH? PO is rather keen on "definition by
>> example" which isn't actually what definitions are.]
>>
>> >
>> > I wonder how PO has managed to keep people speculating about his
>> hidden
>> > code for so long. Realistically, the response should be "post it",
>> > repeated endlessly until he either gets board and goes away or he
>> posts
>> > it and we can finally see what he's doing wrong.
>> >
>> I think this isn't a Vulcan logic question, more of personal needs of
>> the posters - they /want/ PO to continue posting because they get
>> something from constantly responding. Which is fine, but it makes it
>> nigh-on impossible to act together to force particular behaviours from
>> PO, like publishing his code.
>>
>> And is PO's code important? Surely we know PO's mistakes without
>> seeing his code. Seeing the code wouldn't make any difference in
>> explaining his mistakes to him - I imagine his code at least does what
>> /he/ thinks it ought to do, and everyone has explained to him over and
>> over where the problems are with that. I think all we'd get from
>> actually seeing the code is:
>>
>> a) confirmation that PO can write C code, but he's not a good
>> programmer, and he's a worse systems architect/designer
>> b) we'd see /exactly/ how his tracing is implemented, and tell him
>> "why did you do it that way - that's rubbish, and makes
>> your decider a non-computation (or not...)" but no
>> big deal. (And we already know roughly how it's done.)
>> c) confirm that there are all sorts of simple programs for which
>> his code gets the wrong answer - or more likely loops without
>> ever deciding - with no prospect of it being a more general
>> halt decider. But it only has to deal with
>> one specific scenario - the H_Hat(H_Hat) computation, so
>> that's not a big deal.
>
> Its only purpose was to get the right answer in the impossible case.
> I don't have 10,000 man-years to get the right answer in ever case.
>
>> d) someone could code up "proper" test cases and traces, except
>> that now that PO has admitted that main() calling
>> H_Hat(H_Hat) /does/ halt, that will no longer advance anything.
>> (But people may enjoy fiddling with the code for fun anyway.)
>>
>
> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
> // Strachey(1965) CPL translated to C
> void P(u32 x)
> {
> if (H(x, x))
> HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> // This gets the right answer
> int main()
> {
> Output("Input_Halts = ", H1((u32)P, (u32)P));
> }
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> if the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and
Should be is a Halting Computation, not just that the (partial)
simulation halts
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> if the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
Should be is not a Halting Computation. Going to qn instead of qy
because the partial simulation has been aborted before the actual
machine would have reached a Halting state is an Error.
>
> H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the right answer.
Nope.
H^(<H^>) is shown to be a Halting Computation, and thus a true
simulation of <H^> <H^> will reach the halting state, so H should go to
qy, but it goes to qn because it used unsound logic to convince itself
that the pure simulation of its input would never halt, and thus it
incorrectly aborts it simulation and calls it non-halting, which is
actually a significant part of the reason that H^(<H^>) does Halt,
because H^ KNOWS that H will make that mistake, and uses it against H.
>
>> I feel that by now I could write something almost exactly equivalent
>> to PO's efforts if I had to, and I expect that if PO published his
>> code I would be completely unsurprised by what I saw! So it wouldn't
>> be one of my goals to work at persuading PO to publish the code,
>> although I would be curious enough to look at it and maybe play a bit.
>>
>>
>> Mike.
>>
>
> So you could write a Linz H that correctly decides ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ?
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-07 21:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <YZ6dnQGcvutohqX8nZ2dnUU7-InNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #39112 |
On 9/7/2021 8:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/7/21 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/7/2021 8:26 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>> On 07/09/2021 23:26, Ben Bacarisse wrote:> Mike Terry
>>> <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>> >
>>> >> I made a post recently about how I think PO has implemented his
>>> emulation:
>>> >>
>>> >> message-id: <hb2dnTNZFYoJW6v8nZ2dnUU78avNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
>>> >> (around 01:55 UCT)
>>> >>
>>> >> If correct, they are not calls, more like cooperative multithreading
>>> >> or perhaps fibre switches combined with a single-step instruction for
>>> >> x86utm.exe to switch back after just one instruction. Well, let's
>>> >> just say that's not how I would have implemented it. (Or imagined
>>> >> anyone else would do so...)
>>> >
>>> > Yes, I saw that. It seems a reasonable guess and it fits with a
>>> sketch
>>> > he once posted of how Halts works -- the famous Halts is correct
>>> because
>>> > of what would happen if line 15 were commented out. A very clear
>>> > explanation of his POOH problem.
>>> Well, not so clear if we try to define it for an arbitrary input (P,I)
>>> I'd say. Probably we could make some arbitrary judgements to come up
>>> with some mathematically rigorous definition, but I suspect it would
>>> be uninteresting. [The problem is going to be "how exactly should an
>>> arbitrary program P, and arbitrary input data I be mapped to new
>>> inputs P2, I2 as part of POOH? PO is rather keen on "definition by
>>> example" which isn't actually what definitions are.]
>>>
>>> >
>>> > I wonder how PO has managed to keep people speculating about his
>>> hidden
>>> > code for so long. Realistically, the response should be "post it",
>>> > repeated endlessly until he either gets board and goes away or he
>>> posts
>>> > it and we can finally see what he's doing wrong.
>>> >
>>> I think this isn't a Vulcan logic question, more of personal needs of
>>> the posters - they /want/ PO to continue posting because they get
>>> something from constantly responding. Which is fine, but it makes it
>>> nigh-on impossible to act together to force particular behaviours from
>>> PO, like publishing his code.
>>>
>>> And is PO's code important? Surely we know PO's mistakes without
>>> seeing his code. Seeing the code wouldn't make any difference in
>>> explaining his mistakes to him - I imagine his code at least does what
>>> /he/ thinks it ought to do, and everyone has explained to him over and
>>> over where the problems are with that. I think all we'd get from
>>> actually seeing the code is:
>>>
>>> a) confirmation that PO can write C code, but he's not a good
>>> programmer, and he's a worse systems architect/designer
>>> b) we'd see /exactly/ how his tracing is implemented, and tell him
>>> "why did you do it that way - that's rubbish, and makes
>>> your decider a non-computation (or not...)" but no
>>> big deal. (And we already know roughly how it's done.)
>>> c) confirm that there are all sorts of simple programs for which
>>> his code gets the wrong answer - or more likely loops without
>>> ever deciding - with no prospect of it being a more general
>>> halt decider. But it only has to deal with
>>> one specific scenario - the H_Hat(H_Hat) computation, so
>>> that's not a big deal.
>>
>> Its only purpose was to get the right answer in the impossible case.
>> I don't have 10,000 man-years to get the right answer in ever case.
>>
>>> d) someone could code up "proper" test cases and traces, except
>>> that now that PO has admitted that main() calling
>>> H_Hat(H_Hat) /does/ halt, that will no longer advance anything.
>>> (But people may enjoy fiddling with the code for fun anyway.)
>>>
>>
>> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
>> // Strachey(1965) CPL translated to C
>> void P(u32 x)
>> {
>> if (H(x, x))
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> }
>>
>> // This gets the right answer
>> int main()
>> {
>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H1((u32)P, (u32)P));
>> }
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> if the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and
>
> Should be is a Halting Computation, not just that the (partial)
> simulation halts
I think that you may simply be flat out stupid about this aspect.
It is like you expect a simulating halt decider to wait for an infinite
loop to stop running.
>>
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>> if the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>
> Should be is not a Halting Computation. Going to qn instead of qy
> because the partial simulation has been aborted before the actual
> machine would have reached a Halting state is an Error.
>
>>
>> H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the right answer.
>
> Nope.
>
> H^(<H^>) is shown to be a Halting Computation, and thus a true
> simulation of <H^> <H^> will reach the halting state, so H should go to
> qy, but it goes to qn because it used unsound logic to convince itself
In this case it is not flat out stupid it is OCD inability to pay
attention.
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
if the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
if the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qy.
> that the pure simulation of its input would never halt, and thus it
> incorrectly aborts it simulation and calls it non-halting, which is
> actually a significant part of the reason that H^(<H^>) does Halt,
> because H^ KNOWS that H will make that mistake, and uses it against H.
>
>>
>>> I feel that by now I could write something almost exactly equivalent
>>> to PO's efforts if I had to, and I expect that if PO published his
>>> code I would be completely unsurprised by what I saw! So it wouldn't
>>> be one of my goals to work at persuading PO to publish the code,
>>> although I would be curious enough to look at it and maybe play a bit.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike.
>>>
>>
>> So you could write a Linz H that correctly decides ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ?
>>
>>
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-07 22:22 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <68VZI.35382$YW.19915@fx05.iad> |
| In reply to | #39114 |
On 9/7/21 10:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/7/2021 8:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/7/21 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/7/2021 8:26 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>> On 07/09/2021 23:26, Ben Bacarisse wrote:> Mike Terry
>>>> <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>>>> >
>>>> >> I made a post recently about how I think PO has implemented his
>>>> emulation:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> message-id:
>>>> <hb2dnTNZFYoJW6v8nZ2dnUU78avNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
>>>> >> (around 01:55 UCT)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> If correct, they are not calls, more like cooperative
>>>> multithreading
>>>> >> or perhaps fibre switches combined with a single-step
>>>> instruction for
>>>> >> x86utm.exe to switch back after just one instruction. Well, let's
>>>> >> just say that's not how I would have implemented it. (Or imagined
>>>> >> anyone else would do so...)
>>>> >
>>>> > Yes, I saw that. It seems a reasonable guess and it fits with a
>>>> sketch
>>>> > he once posted of how Halts works -- the famous Halts is correct
>>>> because
>>>> > of what would happen if line 15 were commented out. A very clear
>>>> > explanation of his POOH problem.
>>>> Well, not so clear if we try to define it for an arbitrary input (P,I)
>>>> I'd say. Probably we could make some arbitrary judgements to come up
>>>> with some mathematically rigorous definition, but I suspect it would
>>>> be uninteresting. [The problem is going to be "how exactly should an
>>>> arbitrary program P, and arbitrary input data I be mapped to new
>>>> inputs P2, I2 as part of POOH? PO is rather keen on "definition by
>>>> example" which isn't actually what definitions are.]
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > I wonder how PO has managed to keep people speculating about his
>>>> hidden
>>>> > code for so long. Realistically, the response should be "post it",
>>>> > repeated endlessly until he either gets board and goes away or he
>>>> posts
>>>> > it and we can finally see what he's doing wrong.
>>>> >
>>>> I think this isn't a Vulcan logic question, more of personal needs of
>>>> the posters - they /want/ PO to continue posting because they get
>>>> something from constantly responding. Which is fine, but it makes it
>>>> nigh-on impossible to act together to force particular behaviours from
>>>> PO, like publishing his code.
>>>>
>>>> And is PO's code important? Surely we know PO's mistakes without
>>>> seeing his code. Seeing the code wouldn't make any difference in
>>>> explaining his mistakes to him - I imagine his code at least does what
>>>> /he/ thinks it ought to do, and everyone has explained to him over and
>>>> over where the problems are with that. I think all we'd get from
>>>> actually seeing the code is:
>>>>
>>>> a) confirmation that PO can write C code, but he's not a good
>>>> programmer, and he's a worse systems architect/designer
>>>> b) we'd see /exactly/ how his tracing is implemented, and tell him
>>>> "why did you do it that way - that's rubbish, and makes
>>>> your decider a non-computation (or not...)" but no
>>>> big deal. (And we already know roughly how it's done.)
>>>> c) confirm that there are all sorts of simple programs for which
>>>> his code gets the wrong answer - or more likely loops without
>>>> ever deciding - with no prospect of it being a more general
>>>> halt decider. But it only has to deal with
>>>> one specific scenario - the H_Hat(H_Hat) computation, so
>>>> that's not a big deal.
>>>
>>> Its only purpose was to get the right answer in the impossible case.
>>> I don't have 10,000 man-years to get the right answer in ever case.
>>>
>>>> d) someone could code up "proper" test cases and traces, except
>>>> that now that PO has admitted that main() calling
>>>> H_Hat(H_Hat) /does/ halt, that will no longer advance anything.
>>>> (But people may enjoy fiddling with the code for fun anyway.)
>>>>
>>>
>>> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
>>> // Strachey(1965) CPL translated to C
>>> void P(u32 x)
>>> {
>>> if (H(x, x))
>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>> }
>>>
>>> // This gets the right answer
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H1((u32)P, (u32)P));
>>> }
>>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>> if the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and
>>
>> Should be is a Halting Computation, not just that the (partial)
>> simulation halts
>
> I think that you may simply be flat out stupid about this aspect.
> It is like you expect a simulating halt decider to wait for an infinite
> loop to stop running.
No, it isn't allowed to wait that long. That is why a Simulating Halt
Decider doesn't work so well. It needs to answer about what the actual
machine does, when it might not be able to simulate the entire operarion
of the machine.
>
>>>
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>> if the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>>
>> Should be is not a Halting Computation. Going to qn instead of qy
>> because the partial simulation has been aborted before the actual
>> machine would have reached a Halting state is an Error.
>>
>>>
>>> H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets the right answer.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>> H^(<H^>) is shown to be a Halting Computation, and thus a true
>> simulation of <H^> <H^> will reach the halting state, so H should go to
>> qy, but it goes to qn because it used unsound logic to convince itself
>
> In this case it is not flat out stupid it is OCD inability to pay
> attention.
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> if the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts, and
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> if the simulated ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt
>
> H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to H.qy.
Where is a trace of H that ever reached the state qy? That would be an H
that answered 1 to H(<H^>,<H^>)
Note, if you are going to say it is H1, you have already claimed that H1
had to have different code so it could give the different answer, so it
doesn't count, it has to be the actual H.
Since H^(<H^>) is show to Halt, the ACTUAL PURE simulation of <H^> <H^>
will also halt.
You have already established that H.q0 <H^> <H^> goes to qn and you have
spent the last years trying to argue that this was the right answer,
even though H^(<H^>) halts, even though by its spec, it needed to go to
qy to be right.
As far as I have seen, you still insist that the actual machine H will
end up at qn for this case, so it is still wrong.
>> that the pure simulation of its input would never halt, and thus it
>> incorrectly aborts it simulation and calls it non-halting, which is
>> actually a significant part of the reason that H^(<H^>) does Halt,
>> because H^ KNOWS that H will make that mistake, and uses it against H.
>>
>>>
>>>> I feel that by now I could write something almost exactly equivalent
>>>> to PO's efforts if I had to, and I expect that if PO published his
>>>> code I would be completely unsurprised by what I saw! So it wouldn't
>>>> be one of my goals to work at persuading PO to publish the code,
>>>> although I would be curious enough to look at it and maybe play a bit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Mike.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you could write a Linz H that correctly decides ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ?
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-06 11:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <kwqZI.29249$z%4.27722@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #38938 |
On 9/6/21 11:15 AM, olcott wrote: > On 9/5/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 9/5/2021 2:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 9/5/2021 11:24 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/5/2021 10:22 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 6:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This is not true. The Linz H/Ĥ configuration only requires >>>>>>>>>>> that Ĥ.qx >>>>>>>>>>> is an exact copy of H. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No. In fact the TM embedded at Ĥ.qx is very specifically >>>>>>>>>> /not/ an exact >>>>>>>>>> copy of H. Please don't get all stroppy about this. It does >>>>>>>>>> not effect >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Page 319 seems to disagree. >>>>>>>> I am sure it seems so to you, but if Ĥ included "an exact copy >>>>>>>> of H", >>>>>>>> then Ĥ would have an accepting state like H does. What Ĥ really >>>>>>>> includes is an exact copy of what Linz calls H'.>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You simply are not paying close enough attention to the meaning >>>>>>> of my >>>>>>> words. That Ĥ includes an exact copy of H embedded at its state Ĥ.qx >>>>>>> is not at all the same thing as saying that Ĥ <is> and exact copy of >>>>>>> H. >>>>>> Oh dear. Could you not just have said "you're wrong"? You've now >>>>>> introduced another error: no one has said, or thinks you have >>>>>> said, that >>>>>> "Ĥ <is> an exact copy of H" >>>>>> >>>>>>> Linz says that Ĥ <is> H with some states prepended and appended. >>>>>> No he does not (that I can see). And if he does, he's wrong too. >>>>>> Ĥ has >>>>>> an accepting state. H does not. >>>>> >>>>> You seem to really hate to admit when you are wrong: >>>>> >>>>> APPENDING STATES qa AND qb TO H >>>>> Next, we >>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> modify H to produce a Turing >>>>> machine H' >>>> ------------------------------ >>>>> with the structure shown in >>>>> Figure 12.2. With the added states in >>>>> Figure 12.2 we want to convey that the >>>>> transitions between state qy and the >>>>> new states qa and qb are to be made, >>>>> regardless of the tape symbol, in such >>>>> a way that the tape remains unchanged. >>>>> The way this is done is straightforward. >>>> ------------------------------------------ >>>>> Comparing H and H' we see that, in >>>>> situations where H reaches qy and halts, >>>>> the modified machine H' will enter an >>>>> infinite loop. >>>> ----------------------------------------- >>>> I've marked the parts you need to pay attention to. A TM the halts, >>>> and >>>> one that does, not are not "exact copies". You see the double circles >>>> in the diagrams, yes? >>> >>> You don't understand operating system process context switching. >> >> Change the subject. Good plan! >> > > I am not changing the subject. I am enumerating the key prerequisite > knowledge that you are lacking, to understand what I am saying. No, you ar bringing up irrelevant points, because you don't understand the field you are claiming to be talking in. >>> This is covered in depth in the operating system course of every >>> CS undergraduate degree. >> >> Like the one I took at Cambridge, and the one I taught at UCL? Was it >> covered in your business degree from East Jesus Baptist College? >> >> I really don't think you want to play this game with me. I've been >> keeping out of it because what anyone knows does not determine the >> soundness of their case, but I'd wipe the floor with you if we were to >> start comparing the size of our... CS knowledge. >> > > As always when you lack a technical understanding you switch to rhetoric > in an attempt to hide the fact that you are simply confused. Sounds like a perfect description of you. When you don't understand the basics, you start using a lot of rhetorical jargon to try to make it seem like you know something, when it just shows how stupid you are in the field. > >>> I have an advantage in that I have been able to keep this material >>> fresh in my mind by writing operating system code. >> >> What a shame, then, that you are talking about TMs. >> > > When your knowledge is narrow seeing the broader perspective is impossible. When your knowledge of the basics is missing, seeing the actual truth is impossible. > >>> You don't understand the x86 language, I have an advantage in that I >>> have been able to keep this material fresh in my mind by writing x86 >>> code. This may or may not not be offered in most CS undergraduate >>> programs. My undergraduate program covered two semesters of IBM 370 >>> assembly language. I took some seminars in 80386 assembly language >>> later on. >> >> What a shame you are talking about Turning machines, then. >> > > When your knowledge is narrow seeing the broader perspective is impossible. Right, when the topic is about the behavior of kittens, the fine detail between a Siberian Husky and a Labrador Retriever are really important. > >>> Now you don't even understand the elemental concept of delimiting and >>> delimiters. The original H is embedded in Ĥ delimited by the appended >>> and prepended states. >> >> And it is changed by no longer having an accepting state. > > The finite string machine code of H is still there in the middle of Ĥ. > You argue over minutiae because your knowledge is narrow. And you claim that the EXACT SAME finite string can somehow encode two different Computations. FAIL. > >>>> (Yes, I realise the absurdity of arguing about a technical detail with >>>> someone who thinks a TM needs 1000 states to move the head 1000 >>>> places.) >>> >>> I never said that it needs 1000 states. >> >> ... checks ... No, indeed you didn't. Sorry. You said it would require >> that number of instructions which is wrong in the same way. It confuses >> the static TM (1000 instructions, 1000 states, 1000 symbols) with its >> dynamic behaviour (1000 moves, 1000 state transitions, 1000 tape >> writes). >> >>> It needs 1000 tape head moves. >> >> At least. I would hope you know that now. >> > > Which makes encoding my system in the actual TM description language to > see how it implements the algorithm that I designed utterly infeasible > because the degree of detail would be utterly incomprehensible. It is infeasible because you do things that are not actually Computation and so it is IMPOSSIBLE. Your 'Decider' isn't really a Computation, and thus isn't the Computational Equivalent of some Turing Machine to call H, so it isn't eligible to be a Halt Decider. You can't work with actual Turing Machines, because they don't let you hide your 'tricks' that make it not a Computation. The fact that you don't understand what a Computation is still, means you don't see that fact. FAIL. > > If we add relative addressing random access memory and 32-bit tape > elements to the TM model the resulting model might be halfway between > the RASP model and the TM model. Off-hand I don't know of any easy > compact way to compare a pair of integers using a state machine lacking > a comparison operation. Such a feature would probably at least require > bitwise operations. > Right, you have to BREAK the Turing Model to allow it represent non-Computation so that you can convert your algorithm into it. FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-06 21:58 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <87fsuhifqe.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #38938 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 9/5/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> ... Ĥ includes an exact copy of H embedded at its state Ĥ.qx >>> You don't understand operating system process context switching. >> >> Change the subject. Good plan! > > I am not changing the subject. I am enumerating the key prerequisite > knowledge that you are lacking, to understand what I am saying. Your claimed knowledge of process context switching is no excuse for not knowing what Linz is saying about TMs. H^ contains an almost identical copy if H embedded in at the state you call H^.qx. Fortunately, the small differences don't prevent you from being wrong, so I will use your word and call it an "exact copy". You have accepted that, when construed as an input to your H, the string <H^><H^> encodes a halting computation. If your H has any pretensions of being a halt decider, it should accept that string: H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy But you keep telling us that, in fact, the "exact copy" of H embedded in H^ transitions to H^.qn when run with just <H^><H^> on the tape: H^.qx <H^><H^> |- H^.qn An "exact copy" of H can't make an transitions that H can't take, and in fact pretty much everything you've said up until now confirms that your H in fact rejects the string <H^><H^>. All you effort has been put to explaining why the wrong answer is in fact the right one. > The finite string machine code of H is still there in the middle of Ĥ. > You argue over minutiae because your knowledge is narrow. I always keep the big picture in view for you. You've not replied to the post with the big picture stuff in it from around the same time, so I've put the gist of it above. The "exact copy" of H embedded in H^ shows that, in fact, your H would reject the string <H^><H^> despite your very reluctant agreement that "When it is construed as input to H then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ encodes a halting computation" "Exact copies" of TMs make exactly the same transitions when run with exactly the same sequences of characters on the tape. >>> It needs 1000 tape head moves. >> >> At least. I would hope you know that now. > > Which makes encoding my system in the actual TM description language > to see how it implements the algorithm that I designed utterly > infeasible because the degree of detail would be utterly > incomprehensible. I hope you can now see why people were sceptical when you claimed, back in Dec 2018 to have an actual Turing machine fully encoded that did this. Little did we know the extent of the "poetic license" you were using back then. Unfortunately, you can't show a flaw in a proof about TMs and TM halting without talking about TMs. And when you do, I will point out the mistakes. What you claim about your H/H^ show that H fails in exactly the same way all TMs fail to be halt deciders. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-06 16:18 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <YZednUdX0ZMNGKv8nZ2dnUU7-UnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #38961 |
On 9/6/2021 3:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 9/5/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>>>>>>>> ... Ĥ includes an exact copy of H embedded at its state Ĥ.qx
>
>>>> You don't understand operating system process context switching.
>>>
>>> Change the subject. Good plan!
>>
>> I am not changing the subject. I am enumerating the key prerequisite
>> knowledge that you are lacking, to understand what I am saying.
>
> Your claimed knowledge of process context switching is no excuse for not
> knowing what Linz is saying about TMs.
>
> H^ contains an almost identical copy if H embedded in at the state you
> call H^.qx. Fortunately, the small differences don't prevent you from
> being wrong, so I will use your word and call it an "exact copy".
>
> You have accepted that, when construed as an input to your H, the string
> <H^><H^> encodes a halting computation. If your H has any pretensions
> of being a halt decider, it should accept that string:
>
> H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy
>
I have already said that a bunch of times yet you did not notice because
you diligently want to remain focused in disagreement mode.
> But you keep telling us that, in fact, the "exact copy" of H embedded in
> H^ transitions to H^.qn when run with just <H^><H^> on the tape:
>
> H^.qx <H^><H^> |- H^.qn
>
> An "exact copy" of H can't make an transitions that H can't take, and in
> fact pretty much everything you've said up until now confirms that your
> H in fact rejects the string <H^><H^>. All you effort has been put to
> explaining why the wrong answer is in fact the right one.
>
Like I said (and this is beyond your technical competence)
int main() { H1(P,P) }; is the precise analogy to H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
It is an easily verifiable fact that H1 is identical to H yet has
different behavior than H and that H1(P,P) and H(P,P) do correctly
simulate their inputs.
As soon as this one last detail is resolved it would seem that my proof
is complete.
>> The finite string machine code of H is still there in the middle of Ĥ.
>> You argue over minutiae because your knowledge is narrow.
>
> I always keep the big picture in view for you. You've not replied to
> the post with the big picture stuff in it from around the same time, so
> I've put the gist of it above.
>
> The "exact copy" of H embedded in H^ shows that, in fact, your H would
> reject the string <H^><H^> despite your very reluctant agreement that
>
> "When it is construed as input to H then ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ encodes a halting
> computation"
>
> "Exact copies" of TMs make exactly the same transitions when run with
> exactly the same sequences of characters on the tape.
>
>>>> It needs 1000 tape head moves.
>>>
>>> At least. I would hope you know that now.
>>
>> Which makes encoding my system in the actual TM description language
>> to see how it implements the algorithm that I designed utterly
>> infeasible because the degree of detail would be utterly
>> incomprehensible.
>
> I hope you can now see why people were sceptical when you claimed, back
> in Dec 2018 to have an actual Turing machine fully encoded that did
> this. Little did we know the extent of the "poetic license" you were
> using back then.
>
> Unfortunately, you can't show a flaw in a proof about TMs and TM halting
> without talking about TMs. And when you do, I will point out the
> mistakes. What you claim about your H/H^ show that H fails in exactly
> the same way all TMs fail to be halt deciders.
>
It was Linz mistake to form his conclusion on the basis applying a
broken halt decider to itself: Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩. The correct way to do
this would be to apply H to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-06 23:55 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <874kaxiab2.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #38964 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> On 9/6/2021 3:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/5/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>>>>>>>> ... Ĥ includes an exact copy of H embedded at its state Ĥ.qx
>>
>>>>> You don't understand operating system process context switching.
>>>>
>>>> Change the subject. Good plan!
>>>
>>> I am not changing the subject. I am enumerating the key prerequisite
>>> knowledge that you are lacking, to understand what I am saying.
>> Your claimed knowledge of process context switching is no excuse for not
>> knowing what Linz is saying about TMs.
>> H^ contains an almost identical copy if H embedded in at the state you
>> call H^.qx. Fortunately, the small differences don't prevent you from
>> being wrong, so I will use your word and call it an "exact copy".
>> You have accepted that, when construed as an input to your H, the string
>> <H^><H^> encodes a halting computation. If your H has any pretensions
>> of being a halt decider, it should accept that string:
>>
>> H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy
>
> I have already said that a bunch of times yet you did not notice
> because you diligently want to remain focused in disagreement mode.
I am happy you think you've said it lots of times. I could not find any
but I also know not to bother asking you for references.
>> But you keep telling us that, in fact, the "exact copy" of H embedded in
>> H^ transitions to H^.qn when run with just <H^><H^> on the tape:
>>
>> H^.qx <H^><H^> |- H^.qn
>>
>> An "exact copy" of H can't make an transitions that H can't take, and in
>> fact pretty much everything you've said up until now confirms that your
>> H in fact rejects the string <H^><H^>. All you effort has been put to
>> explaining why the wrong answer is in fact the right one.
>
> Like I said (and this is beyond your technical competence)
> int main() { H1(P,P) }; is the precise analogy to H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
Ah, proof by analogy won't fly. This line
H^.qx <H^><H^> |- H^.qn
shows that your H is wrong. It's a simple as that.
But I think you want to stop talking about TMs because they make the
reason your H is wrong far too clear.
If you stop writing TM configuration lines, and stop talking about
Linz's proof, I'll stop correcting you.
>> Unfortunately, you can't show a flaw in a proof about TMs and TM halting
>> without talking about TMs. And when you do, I will point out the
>> mistakes. What you claim about your H/H^ show that H fails in exactly
>> the same way all TMs fail to be halt deciders.
>
> It was Linz mistake to form his conclusion on the basis applying a
> broken halt decider to itself: Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
You agree that your H is broken? That there are inputs it can't handle?
I thought you'd spent 17 years arguing the exact opposite.
> The correct way to do this would be to apply H to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
Your H fails because it does this:
H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qn
when its should do this
H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-06 18:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <eY2dnaQvZfOMOKv8nZ2dnUU78K_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #38972 |
On 9/6/2021 5:55 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 9/6/2021 3:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 9/5/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ... Ĥ includes an exact copy of H embedded at its state Ĥ.qx
>>>
>>>>>> You don't understand operating system process context switching.
>>>>>
>>>>> Change the subject. Good plan!
>>>>
>>>> I am not changing the subject. I am enumerating the key prerequisite
>>>> knowledge that you are lacking, to understand what I am saying.
>>> Your claimed knowledge of process context switching is no excuse for not
>>> knowing what Linz is saying about TMs.
>>> H^ contains an almost identical copy if H embedded in at the state you
>>> call H^.qx. Fortunately, the small differences don't prevent you from
>>> being wrong, so I will use your word and call it an "exact copy".
>>> You have accepted that, when construed as an input to your H, the string
>>> <H^><H^> encodes a halting computation. If your H has any pretensions
>>> of being a halt decider, it should accept that string:
>>>
>>> H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy
>>
>> I have already said that a bunch of times yet you did not notice
>> because you diligently want to remain focused in disagreement mode.
>
> I am happy you think you've said it lots of times. I could not find any
> but I also know not to bother asking you for references.
>
>>> But you keep telling us that, in fact, the "exact copy" of H embedded in
>>> H^ transitions to H^.qn when run with just <H^><H^> on the tape:
>>>
>>> H^.qx <H^><H^> |- H^.qn
>>>
>>> An "exact copy" of H can't make an transitions that H can't take, and in
>>> fact pretty much everything you've said up until now confirms that your
>>> H in fact rejects the string <H^><H^>. All you effort has been put to
>>> explaining why the wrong answer is in fact the right one.
>>
>> Like I said (and this is beyond your technical competence)
>> int main() { H1(P,P) }; is the precise analogy to H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>
> Ah, proof by analogy won't fly. This line
>
> H^.qx <H^><H^> |- H^.qn
>
> shows that your H is wrong. It's a simple as that.
>
Not all all distinctly different computations can have different
results. You can bury your head in the same and pretend that they are
the same computation.
When you actually look at the execution trace of the x86 code your
assumption is proven wrong. That you cannot comprehend x86 is not my fault.
> But I think you want to stop talking about TMs because they make the
> reason your H is wrong far too clear.
>
H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ has a dependency on Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ that does not exist in reverse.
If the theory of computation can't comprehend this this it is simply
insufficiently expressive.
> If you stop writing TM configuration lines, and stop talking about
> Linz's proof, I'll stop correcting you.
>
>>> Unfortunately, you can't show a flaw in a proof about TMs and TM halting
>>> without talking about TMs. And when you do, I will point out the
>>> mistakes. What you claim about your H/H^ show that H fails in exactly
>>> the same way all TMs fail to be halt deciders.
>>
>> It was Linz mistake to form his conclusion on the basis applying a
>> broken halt decider to itself: Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>
> You agree that your H is broken? That there are inputs it can't handle?
> I thought you'd spent 17 years arguing the exact opposite.
>
>> The correct way to do this would be to apply H to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>
> Your H fails because it does this:
>
> H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qn
>
> when its should do this
>
> H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-07 01:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <87sfyhgquh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #38979 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> On 9/6/2021 5:55 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/6/2021 3:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/5/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ... Ĥ includes an exact copy of H embedded at its state Ĥ.qx
>>>>
>>>>>>> You don't understand operating system process context switching.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Change the subject. Good plan!
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not changing the subject. I am enumerating the key prerequisite
>>>>> knowledge that you are lacking, to understand what I am saying.
>>>> Your claimed knowledge of process context switching is no excuse for not
>>>> knowing what Linz is saying about TMs.
>>>> H^ contains an almost identical copy if H embedded in at the state you
>>>> call H^.qx. Fortunately, the small differences don't prevent you from
>>>> being wrong, so I will use your word and call it an "exact copy".
>>>> You have accepted that, when construed as an input to your H, the string
>>>> <H^><H^> encodes a halting computation. If your H has any pretensions
>>>> of being a halt decider, it should accept that string:
>>>>
>>>> H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy
>>>
>>> I have already said that a bunch of times yet you did not notice
>>> because you diligently want to remain focused in disagreement mode.
>>
>> I am happy you think you've said it lots of times. I could not find any
>> but I also know not to bother asking you for references.
>>
>>>> But you keep telling us that, in fact, the "exact copy" of H embedded in
>>>> H^ transitions to H^.qn when run with just <H^><H^> on the tape:
>>>>
>>>> H^.qx <H^><H^> |- H^.qn
>>>>
>>>> An "exact copy" of H can't make an transitions that H can't take, and in
>>>> fact pretty much everything you've said up until now confirms that your
>>>> H in fact rejects the string <H^><H^>. All you effort has been put to
>>>> explaining why the wrong answer is in fact the right one.
>>>
>>> Like I said (and this is beyond your technical competence)
>>> int main() { H1(P,P) }; is the precise analogy to H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>
>> Ah, proof by analogy won't fly. This line
>> H^.qx <H^><H^> |- H^.qn
>> shows that your H is wrong. It's a simple as that.
>
> Not all all distinctly different computations can have different
> results.
You tell me they are the same computation. TM at H^.qx is an "exact
copy" of H. How can two TMs that are exact copies of each other make
different transitions given the same input?
> You can bury your head in the same and pretend that they are
> the same computation.
You tell me they are the same. The TMs are exact copies and the inputs
are the same, yet they result in different transactions.
(Actually they don't. Both H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> transition
to the rejecting state, named either H.qn or H^.qn. It's just that
you've recently accepted that H shouldn't.)
>>> The correct way to do this would be to apply H to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>
>> Your H fails because it does this:
>> H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qn
>> when its should do this
>> H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-06 19:49 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <eOidneeA7ZyJKqv8nZ2dnUU7-WXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #38995 |
On 9/6/2021 7:40 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 9/6/2021 5:55 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 9/6/2021 3:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/5/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ... Ĥ includes an exact copy of H embedded at its state Ĥ.qx
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't understand operating system process context switching.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Change the subject. Good plan!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am not changing the subject. I am enumerating the key prerequisite
>>>>>> knowledge that you are lacking, to understand what I am saying.
>>>>> Your claimed knowledge of process context switching is no excuse for not
>>>>> knowing what Linz is saying about TMs.
>>>>> H^ contains an almost identical copy if H embedded in at the state you
>>>>> call H^.qx. Fortunately, the small differences don't prevent you from
>>>>> being wrong, so I will use your word and call it an "exact copy".
>>>>> You have accepted that, when construed as an input to your H, the string
>>>>> <H^><H^> encodes a halting computation. If your H has any pretensions
>>>>> of being a halt decider, it should accept that string:
>>>>>
>>>>> H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy
>>>>
>>>> I have already said that a bunch of times yet you did not notice
>>>> because you diligently want to remain focused in disagreement mode.
>>>
>>> I am happy you think you've said it lots of times. I could not find any
>>> but I also know not to bother asking you for references.
>>>
>>>>> But you keep telling us that, in fact, the "exact copy" of H embedded in
>>>>> H^ transitions to H^.qn when run with just <H^><H^> on the tape:
>>>>>
>>>>> H^.qx <H^><H^> |- H^.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> An "exact copy" of H can't make an transitions that H can't take, and in
>>>>> fact pretty much everything you've said up until now confirms that your
>>>>> H in fact rejects the string <H^><H^>. All you effort has been put to
>>>>> explaining why the wrong answer is in fact the right one.
>>>>
>>>> Like I said (and this is beyond your technical competence)
>>>> int main() { H1(P,P) }; is the precise analogy to H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>
>>> Ah, proof by analogy won't fly. This line
>>> H^.qx <H^><H^> |- H^.qn
>>> shows that your H is wrong. It's a simple as that.
>>
>> Not at all distinctly different computations can have different
>> results.
>
> You tell me they are the same computation.
No I never ever said that.
I ALWAYS ALWAYS SAY THAT THEY ARE DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT COMPUTATONS.
> TM at H^.qx is an "exact
> copy" of H. How can two TMs that are exact copies of each other make
> different transitions given the same input?
>
That H1 calls H means that H1 can see what H does.
The H is called by H1 means that H does not even know that H1 exists.
>> You can bury your head in the same and pretend that they are
>> the same computation.
>
> You tell me they are the same. The TMs are exact copies and the inputs
> are the same, yet they result in different transactions.
>
> (Actually they don't. Both H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> transition
> to the rejecting state, named either H.qn or H^.qn. It's just that
> you've recently accepted that H shouldn't.)
>
>>>> The correct way to do this would be to apply H to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>
>>> Your H fails because it does this:
>>> H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qn
>>> when its should do this
>>> H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-07 02:09 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <87mtopgpiw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #38997 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> On 9/6/2021 7:40 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 9/6/2021 5:55 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/6/2021 3:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/5/2021 6:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... Ĥ includes an exact copy of H embedded at its state Ĥ.qx
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You don't understand operating system process context switching.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Change the subject. Good plan!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not changing the subject. I am enumerating the key prerequisite
>>>>>>> knowledge that you are lacking, to understand what I am saying.
>>>>>> Your claimed knowledge of process context switching is no excuse for not
>>>>>> knowing what Linz is saying about TMs.
>>>>>> H^ contains an almost identical copy if H embedded in at the state you
>>>>>> call H^.qx. Fortunately, the small differences don't prevent you from
>>>>>> being wrong, so I will use your word and call it an "exact copy".
>>>>>> You have accepted that, when construed as an input to your H, the string
>>>>>> <H^><H^> encodes a halting computation. If your H has any pretensions
>>>>>> of being a halt decider, it should accept that string:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy
>>>>>
>>>>> I have already said that a bunch of times yet you did not notice
>>>>> because you diligently want to remain focused in disagreement mode.
>>>>
>>>> I am happy you think you've said it lots of times. I could not find any
>>>> but I also know not to bother asking you for references.
>>>>
>>>>>> But you keep telling us that, in fact, the "exact copy" of H embedded in
>>>>>> H^ transitions to H^.qn when run with just <H^><H^> on the tape:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H^.qx <H^><H^> |- H^.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> An "exact copy" of H can't make an transitions that H can't take, and in
>>>>>> fact pretty much everything you've said up until now confirms that your
>>>>>> H in fact rejects the string <H^><H^>. All you effort has been put to
>>>>>> explaining why the wrong answer is in fact the right one.
>>>>>
>>>>> Like I said (and this is beyond your technical competence)
>>>>> int main() { H1(P,P) }; is the precise analogy to H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, proof by analogy won't fly. This line
>>>> H^.qx <H^><H^> |- H^.qn
>>>> shows that your H is wrong. It's a simple as that.
>>>
>>> Not at all distinctly different computations can have different
>>> results.
>> You tell me they are the same computation.
>
> No I never ever said that.
> I ALWAYS ALWAYS SAY THAT THEY ARE DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT COMPUTATONS.
Identical TMs with identical inputs are computationally equivalent. We
know that
H^.qx <H^><H^> |- H^.qn
so the same TM (H), run with the same input (<H^><H^>), cannot
transition to the sate you say it should. One of your claims is wrong.
(I can't possibly know which, but they can't both be ture.)
>> TM at H^.qx is an "exact
>> copy" of H. How can two TMs that are exact copies of each other make
>> different transitions given the same input?
>
> That H1 calls H means that H1 can see what H does.
> The H is called by H1 means that H does not even know that H1 exists.
TMs don't call each other. Have you just been pretending to talk about
TMs the whole time? If you are not talking about TMs, just say so and
let you carry on waffling about your secret pile of C code. TMs have
clear and precise behaviour, so you can't waffle about them.
>>>> Your H fails because it does this:
>>>> H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qn
>>>> when its should do this
>>>> H.q0 <H^><H^> |- H.qy
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 25 of 37 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25] 26 27 … 37 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web