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 22 of 37 — ← Prev page 1 … 20 21 [22] 23 24 … 37 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-04 20:14 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <IZTYI.32700$F26.1039@fx44.iad> |
| In reply to | #38882 |
On 9/4/21 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/4/2021 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/4/21 6:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/4/2021 3:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 9/4/21 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/4/2021 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/4/21 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 1:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/4/21 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 12:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/21 1:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/21 12:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 10:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/21 8:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2021 7:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2021 4:40 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2021 10:50 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2021 10:16 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2021 9:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out you have ducked my question at least six
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /without/ counting any other people who has asked!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes 7:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will quit dodging your dishonest dodge as soon as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic crank! You'll answer when I accept a garbled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsehood, an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obligation you are guaranteed to never have to meet!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, you've dodged the question 9 times now (8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread). Here's you chance to go for ten times:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we're up to ten dodges. Do you want to try for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11 or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore the post?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This string encodes Ĥ that halts and ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ that never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What string?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if the simulated ⟨Ĥ1⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are at least three strings mentioned on those two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lines and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then you don't claim that any of them encodes the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩. So no answer here. That's 11 times you've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answering.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not a hard question. In fact I am sure you know the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't answer because you either have to say something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> silly, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you like me to explain again why this question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matters so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A whole new way of making my point:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the original Linz H defined to be a simulating halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to this criteria:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem of determining, from a description of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer program and an input,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether the simulation of this program must be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent it from running forever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above criteria is valid on the basis of the known
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the direct execution of a computation and its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by a UTM. The same criteria universally works on all inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their halting status to be correctly decided.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly transitions to H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is analogous to int main() { H1(P,P; } in section V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you just have proven that H is not a computation as two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given the same input give different answers (From your V3).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This can only be fully understood in terms of int main() {
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H1(P,P); }
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where there are no details that must simply be imagined.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H1(P,P) is a pure function of its execution trace input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) is a pure function of its execution trace input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The last remaining question that must be answered are the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> details
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of why
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the execution trace inputs vary between H1 and H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Since neither of these HAVE a execution trace as as input, you
>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>> admitted that they are not Computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> F-
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The simulator aspect of H/H1 has an input and the halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of
>>>>>>>>>>> H/H1 has an input derived from the simulation of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is clear that that halt decider aspect of H and H1 is a pure
>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>> of this derived execution trace.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is not clear what the simulation aspect is a pure function
>>>>>>>>>>> of.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The 'Halt Decider' as a total unit has only the machine and its
>>>>>>>>>> input as
>>>>>>>>>> its input.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> EVERYTHING within the decider can only use these and the
>>>>>>>>>> things it
>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>> derive from these.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the 'Halt Decider Aspect' is getting an execution trace
>>>>>>>>>> from the
>>>>>>>>>> 'Simulator Aspect' which is directly using those inputs, then the
>>>>>>>>>> execution trace will need to be a pure function of the provided
>>>>>>>>>> input,
>>>>>>>>>> so will be the same for the to cases.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The execution trace must be a pure function of something, this
>>>>>>>>> remains
>>>>>>>>> to be worked out. The halt deciding aspect is a pure function
>>>>>>>>> of its
>>>>>>>>> input execution trace.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that you don't know is telling.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They way you analyze, your deciders are NOT a pure function of the
>>>>>>>> representation of the Machine and the Input, as the supposed same
>>>>>>>> algorithm gives different answers for the exact same input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The halt decider <is> a pure function of its execution trace input.
>>>>>>> The execution trace is a pure function of something.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But apparently not of the input.
>>>>>
>>>>> The halt deciding aspect of H1/H is a pure function of its own input
>>>>> which is the execution trace. It bases its halt status decision on
>>>>> nothing besides this execution trace.
>>>>>
>>>>> The execution trace derived by the simulating aspect of H/H1 is a pure
>>>>> function of something. Its input(P,P) and
>>>>>
>>>>> the relative placement of itself in the execution trace order?
>>>>>
>>>>> H1(P,P) simulates P(P) that calls H(P,P)
>>>>> creates a dependency relationship between H1 and H that does not exist
>>>>> in reverse.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, is H1 a different computation than H? As I said before, if H1 is a
>>>> different compuation than H, then the fact that H1 gets the answer
>>>> right
>>>> doesn't matter as it is H that needs to get the right answer for H^
>>>> built on H.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is not true. The Linz H/Ĥ configuration only requires that Ĥ.qx is
>>> an exact copy of H. In my C/x86 H1/H configuration H1 has identical code
>>> to H thus is in the same relationship as the Peter Linz H/Ĥ
>>> configuration.
>>
>> For A Turing Machine, an exact copy will do exactly the same thing.
>> PERIOD. DEFINIIION.
>>
>
> You are simply wrong.
Care to show me a REAL Turing Machine that two exact copies of which
given the exact same input can do different things?
Even the idiocy to claim that that could be shows how little you
understand what a Turing Machine is.
I think you have just proved that you are not capable of understanding
what an actual Computation is, and thus not qualified to speak of
Computation Theory.
Until you actual PROVE your statement, maybe it just makes sense to
point out that anything you claim as 'Self Evident' is not close to
being proven.
>
>> Thus, you equivalence is broken. FAIL.
>>
>>>
>>>> If H1 IS the same computation to try to get around this, why does it
>>>> give a different answer? That isn't allowed for a real computation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is the same code yet a different computation because
>>> (execution order):
>>
>> Computations don't care about anything but there formal inputs.
>>
>> FAIL.
>>
>>>
>>> H1(P,P) simulates P(P) that calls H(P,P)
>>> creates a dependency relationship between H1 and H that does not exist
>>> in reverse. H1 sees that H(P,P) aborts its input. H cannot even see H1.
>>
>> Since both H and H1 see H^ calling H, if they are the same algorithm,
>> then need to return the same answer.
>>
>
> You are utterly confused there is no H^ here
H^ is the OFFICIAL name of the Turing Machine to be decided in Linz proof.
P is just then name for the formal arguement for the decider is some
symbologies. If that is your best arguement, you have lost.
>
> void P(u32 x)
> {
> if (H(x, x))
> HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> Output("Input_Halts = ", H1((u32)P, (u32)P));
> }
>
> H1 sees H(P,P) abort its input
> H does not see H1 at all.
>
> This makes these two instances different computations even though they
> have identical code.
Both H1 and H see P call H(P,P) so both see the exact same computation
to decide on.
Again, do you claim H1 to be the SAME decider as H, and thus you have
shown that H is not a computation, and thus can't be a decider, or is it
a DIFFERENT decider and thus it doesn't matter what is says, as the H^
of Linz (aka P) is only designed to foil the decider it was built from
which is H, which it does.
Either way you lose.
The fact that you point out that they have the same code implies that
you are claiming them to be 'the same' but that just proves that H isn't
a computation, and thus not eligable to be a decider.
This really is a fatal flaw in your argument, because if H isn't
actually a Computation, is can't be the Computational Equivalent to the
H of Linz's proof, so you have absolutely ZERO connection to use to
discredit it.
>
>
>> FAIL.
>>
>>>
>>> The exact same thing occurs with the
>>> Linz H that simulates the Linz ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ that invokes Ĥ.qx
>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> H can see that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ aborts its input. Ĥ cannot see H at all.
>>>
>>
>> In Linz, H^ runs the algorithm of H from its state qx, that H aborts its
>> simulation, goes to qn and then H^ Halts. Thus H^ is a Halting
>> Simulation and H was wrong in its determination that <H^> <H^> encodes a
>> non-Halting Computation since we just ran it and it halted.
>>
>> The only way to be different is that H isn't actually a Turing Machine
>> and thus we couldn't actually have done this, but in the claim
>> equivalent machine H wasn't actually a Computation and the H within the
>> simulation behaves differently then the one doing the simulation, and
>> thus doesn't qualify to be a decider.
>>
>>>> Ultimately, it seems that H isn't actually a Computation as its answer
>>>> seems to depend on more that its formal input but something about its
>>>> position in the execution trace, which is NOT something specified as
>>>> its
>>>> formal input.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-04 23:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <vrqdnWXUg4763Kn8nZ2dnUU7-fnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #38888 |
On 9/4/2021 7:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/4/21 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/4/2021 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 9/4/21 6:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/4/2021 3:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 9/4/21 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/4/21 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 1:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/21 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 12:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/21 1:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/21 12:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 10:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/21 8:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2021 7:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2021 4:40 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2021 10:50 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2021 10:16 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2021 9:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out you have ducked my question at least six
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /without/ counting any other people who has asked!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes 7:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will quit dodging your dishonest dodge as soon as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic crank! You'll answer when I accept a garbled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsehood, an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obligation you are guaranteed to never have to meet!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, you've dodged the question 9 times now (8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread). Here's you chance to go for ten times:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we're up to ten dodges. Do you want to try for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11 or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore the post?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This string encodes Ĥ that halts and ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ that never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What string?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if the simulated ⟨Ĥ1⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are at least three strings mentioned on those two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lines and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then you don't claim that any of them encodes the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩. So no answer here. That's 11 times you've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answering.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not a hard question. In fact I am sure you know the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't answer because you either have to say something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> silly, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you like me to explain again why this question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matters so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A whole new way of making my point:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the original Linz H defined to be a simulating halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to this criteria:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem of determining, from a description of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer program and an input,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether the simulation of this program must be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent it from running forever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above criteria is valid on the basis of the known
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the direct execution of a computation and its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by a UTM. The same criteria universally works on all inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their halting status to be correctly decided.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly transitions to H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is analogous to int main() { H1(P,P; } in section V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you just have proven that H is not a computation as two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given the same input give different answers (From your V3).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This can only be fully understood in terms of int main() {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H1(P,P); }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where there are no details that must simply be imagined.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H1(P,P) is a pure function of its execution trace input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) is a pure function of its execution trace input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The last remaining question that must be answered are the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the execution trace inputs vary between H1 and H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since neither of these HAVE a execution trace as as input, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> admitted that they are not Computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> F-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulator aspect of H/H1 has an input and the halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of
>>>>>>>>>>>> H/H1 has an input derived from the simulation of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is clear that that halt decider aspect of H and H1 is a pure
>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>> of this derived execution trace.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not clear what the simulation aspect is a pure function
>>>>>>>>>>>> of.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The 'Halt Decider' as a total unit has only the machine and its
>>>>>>>>>>> input as
>>>>>>>>>>> its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> EVERYTHING within the decider can only use these and the
>>>>>>>>>>> things it
>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>> derive from these.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If the 'Halt Decider Aspect' is getting an execution trace
>>>>>>>>>>> from the
>>>>>>>>>>> 'Simulator Aspect' which is directly using those inputs, then the
>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace will need to be a pure function of the provided
>>>>>>>>>>> input,
>>>>>>>>>>> so will be the same for the to cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The execution trace must be a pure function of something, this
>>>>>>>>>> remains
>>>>>>>>>> to be worked out. The halt deciding aspect is a pure function
>>>>>>>>>> of its
>>>>>>>>>> input execution trace.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The fact that you don't know is telling.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They way you analyze, your deciders are NOT a pure function of the
>>>>>>>>> representation of the Machine and the Input, as the supposed same
>>>>>>>>> algorithm gives different answers for the exact same input.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The halt decider <is> a pure function of its execution trace input.
>>>>>>>> The execution trace is a pure function of something.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But apparently not of the input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The halt deciding aspect of H1/H is a pure function of its own input
>>>>>> which is the execution trace. It bases its halt status decision on
>>>>>> nothing besides this execution trace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The execution trace derived by the simulating aspect of H/H1 is a pure
>>>>>> function of something. Its input(P,P) and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> the relative placement of itself in the execution trace order?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H1(P,P) simulates P(P) that calls H(P,P)
>>>>>> creates a dependency relationship between H1 and H that does not exist
>>>>>> in reverse.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So, is H1 a different computation than H? As I said before, if H1 is a
>>>>> different compuation than H, then the fact that H1 gets the answer
>>>>> right
>>>>> doesn't matter as it is H that needs to get the right answer for H^
>>>>> built on H.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is not true. The Linz H/Ĥ configuration only requires that Ĥ.qx is
>>>> an exact copy of H. In my C/x86 H1/H configuration H1 has identical code
>>>> to H thus is in the same relationship as the Peter Linz H/Ĥ
>>>> configuration.
>>>
>>> For A Turing Machine, an exact copy will do exactly the same thing.
>>> PERIOD. DEFINIIION.
>>>
>>
>> You are simply wrong.
>
> Care to show me a REAL Turing Machine that two exact copies of which
> given the exact same input can do different things?
>
It seems to be obvious that you simply fail to comprehend the one way
dependency relationship between H1 and H.
When H1 simulates P(P) and P calls H(P,P) H1 can see that H returns to P
whereas H has no idea that H1 exists.
> Even the idiocy to claim that that could be shows how little you
> understand what a Turing Machine is.
>
> I think you have just proved that you are not capable of understanding
> what an actual Computation is, and thus not qualified to speak of
> Computation Theory.
>
> Until you actual PROVE your statement, maybe it just makes sense to
> point out that anything you claim as 'Self Evident' is not close to
> being proven.
>
>
>>
>>> Thus, you equivalence is broken. FAIL.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> If H1 IS the same computation to try to get around this, why does it
>>>>> give a different answer? That isn't allowed for a real computation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is the same code yet a different computation because
>>>> (execution order):
>>>
>>> Computations don't care about anything but there formal inputs.
>>>
>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> H1(P,P) simulates P(P) that calls H(P,P)
>>>> creates a dependency relationship between H1 and H that does not exist
>>>> in reverse. H1 sees that H(P,P) aborts its input. H cannot even see H1.
>>>
>>> Since both H and H1 see H^ calling H, if they are the same algorithm,
>>> then need to return the same answer.
>>>
>>
>> You are utterly confused there is no H^ here
>
> H^ is the OFFICIAL name of the Turing Machine to be decided in Linz proof.
>
> P is just then name for the formal arguement for the decider is some
> symbologies. If that is your best arguement, you have lost.
>
>>
>> void P(u32 x)
>> {
>> if (H(x, x))
>> HERE: goto HERE;
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> Output("Input_Halts = ", H1((u32)P, (u32)P));
>> }
>>
>> H1 sees H(P,P) abort its input
>> H does not see H1 at all.
>>
>> This makes these two instances different computations even though they
>> have identical code.
>
> Both H1 and H see P call H(P,P) so both see the exact same computation
> to decide on.
>
> Again, do you claim H1 to be the SAME decider as H, and thus you have
> shown that H is not a computation, and thus can't be a decider, or is it
> a DIFFERENT decider and thus it doesn't matter what is says, as the H^
> of Linz (aka P) is only designed to foil the decider it was built from
> which is H, which it does.
>
> Either way you lose.
>
> The fact that you point out that they have the same code implies that
> you are claiming them to be 'the same' but that just proves that H isn't
> a computation, and thus not eligable to be a decider.
>
> This really is a fatal flaw in your argument, because if H isn't
> actually a Computation, is can't be the Computational Equivalent to the
> H of Linz's proof, so you have absolutely ZERO connection to use to
> discredit it.
>
>>
>>
>>> FAIL.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The exact same thing occurs with the
>>>> Linz H that simulates the Linz ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ that invokes Ĥ.qx
>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> H can see that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ aborts its input. Ĥ cannot see H at all.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In Linz, H^ runs the algorithm of H from its state qx, that H aborts its
>>> simulation, goes to qn and then H^ Halts. Thus H^ is a Halting
>>> Simulation and H was wrong in its determination that <H^> <H^> encodes a
>>> non-Halting Computation since we just ran it and it halted.
>>>
>>> The only way to be different is that H isn't actually a Turing Machine
>>> and thus we couldn't actually have done this, but in the claim
>>> equivalent machine H wasn't actually a Computation and the H within the
>>> simulation behaves differently then the one doing the simulation, and
>>> thus doesn't qualify to be a decider.
>>>
>>>>> Ultimately, it seems that H isn't actually a Computation as its answer
>>>>> seems to depend on more that its formal input but something about its
>>>>> position in the execution trace, which is NOT something specified as
>>>>> its
>>>>> formal input.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
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 | 2021-09-05 06:40 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <O81ZI.97649$o45.92087@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #38892 |
On 9/5/21 12:02 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/4/2021 7:14 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/4/21 7:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/4/2021 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 9/4/21 6:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/4/2021 3:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/4/21 3:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 2:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 9/4/21 2:42 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 1:11 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/21 1:44 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 12:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/21 1:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 11:42 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/21 12:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/4/2021 10:57 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/21 8:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2021 7:07 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2021 4:40 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2021 10:50 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2021 10:16 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/3/2021 9:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out you have ducked my question at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> least six
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> previously
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /without/ counting any other people who has asked!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> makes 7:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will quit dodging your dishonest dodge as soon as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> acknowledge that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Classic crank! You'll answer when I accept a garbled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> falsehood, an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> obligation you are guaranteed to never have to meet!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, you've dodged the question 9 times now (8
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thread). Here's you chance to go for ten times:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we're up to ten dodges. Do you want to try for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11 or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignore the post?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This string encodes Ĥ that halts and ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What string?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if the simulated ⟨Ĥ1⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ does not halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are at least three strings mentioned on those two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lines and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then you don't claim that any of them encodes the halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computation of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩. So no answer here. That's 11 times
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you've
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> avoided
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answering.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's not a hard question. In fact I am sure you know the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> answer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> won't answer because you either have to say something
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> silly, or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you like me to explain again why this question
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matters so
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> much?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A whole new way of making my point:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When the original Linz H defined to be a simulating halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> according to this criteria:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem of determining, from a description
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arbitrary
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> computer program and an input,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether the simulation of this program must be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aborted to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> prevent it from running forever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above criteria is valid on the basis of the known
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> equivalence
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between the direct execution of a computation and its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by a UTM. The same criteria universally works on all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inputs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> allowing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their halting status to be correctly decided.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly transitions to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H.qy
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is analogous to int main() { H1(P,P; } in section V3
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And you just have proven that H is not a computation as two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> copies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> given the same input give different answers (From your V3).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> FAIL.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This can only be fully understood in terms of int main() {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H1(P,P); }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where there are no details that must simply be imagined.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H1(P,P) is a pure function of its execution trace input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(P,P) is a pure function of its execution trace input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The last remaining question that must be answered are the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> details
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the execution trace inputs vary between H1 and H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since neither of these HAVE a execution trace as as input,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> admitted that they are not Computation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> F-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The simulator aspect of H/H1 has an input and the halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>> aspect of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> H/H1 has an input derived from the simulation of this input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is clear that that halt decider aspect of H and H1 is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pure
>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of this derived execution trace.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is not clear what the simulation aspect is a pure function
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The 'Halt Decider' as a total unit has only the machine and its
>>>>>>>>>>>> input as
>>>>>>>>>>>> its input.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> EVERYTHING within the decider can only use these and the
>>>>>>>>>>>> things it
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>> derive from these.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If the 'Halt Decider Aspect' is getting an execution trace
>>>>>>>>>>>> from the
>>>>>>>>>>>> 'Simulator Aspect' which is directly using those inputs,
>>>>>>>>>>>> then the
>>>>>>>>>>>> execution trace will need to be a pure function of the provided
>>>>>>>>>>>> input,
>>>>>>>>>>>> so will be the same for the to cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The execution trace must be a pure function of something, this
>>>>>>>>>>> remains
>>>>>>>>>>> to be worked out. The halt deciding aspect is a pure function
>>>>>>>>>>> of its
>>>>>>>>>>> input execution trace.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The fact that you don't know is telling.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They way you analyze, your deciders are NOT a pure function of
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> representation of the Machine and the Input, as the supposed same
>>>>>>>>>> algorithm gives different answers for the exact same input.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The halt decider <is> a pure function of its execution trace
>>>>>>>>> input.
>>>>>>>>> The execution trace is a pure function of something.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But apparently not of the input.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The halt deciding aspect of H1/H is a pure function of its own input
>>>>>>> which is the execution trace. It bases its halt status decision on
>>>>>>> nothing besides this execution trace.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The execution trace derived by the simulating aspect of H/H1 is a
>>>>>>> pure
>>>>>>> function of something. Its input(P,P) and
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> the relative placement of itself in the execution trace order?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H1(P,P) simulates P(P) that calls H(P,P)
>>>>>>> creates a dependency relationship between H1 and H that does not
>>>>>>> exist
>>>>>>> in reverse.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, is H1 a different computation than H? As I said before, if H1
>>>>>> is a
>>>>>> different compuation than H, then the fact that H1 gets the answer
>>>>>> right
>>>>>> doesn't matter as it is H that needs to get the right answer for H^
>>>>>> built on H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not true. The Linz H/Ĥ configuration only requires that
>>>>> Ĥ.qx is
>>>>> an exact copy of H. In my C/x86 H1/H configuration H1 has identical
>>>>> code
>>>>> to H thus is in the same relationship as the Peter Linz H/Ĥ
>>>>> configuration.
>>>>
>>>> For A Turing Machine, an exact copy will do exactly the same thing.
>>>> PERIOD. DEFINIIION.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You are simply wrong.
>>
>> Care to show me a REAL Turing Machine that two exact copies of which
>> given the exact same input can do different things?
>>
>
> It seems to be obvious that you simply fail to comprehend the one way
> dependency relationship between H1 and H.
>
> When H1 simulates P(P) and P calls H(P,P) H1 can see that H returns to P
> whereas H has no idea that H1 exists.
Non-Responsive. You have now effectively admitted defeat to the point
that copies of a Turing Machine WILL all behave the same for the same
input. (Until you do show some proof)
Why does that matter?
The operation of Code is depenedent on:
1) The Code (of which H and H1 are the same)
2) The Input to the Code: Which in both cases is P,P
Both sets of code sees that P calls H(P,P) so both should see the same
results
If they ARE the same code, they need to give the same answer, so FAIL.
If they AREN'T the same code, then who cares what H1 says, it isn't the
machine that P was built on, so it only matters what H says, SO FAIL.
Remember, we just established (by your non-answer) that copies of Turing
Machines do the same when given the same input, so we have proved that
H1 is NOT the computational equivalent of the Turing Machine H in the
proof, BUT, by how you generated it, it should have been, which brings
the conclusion that H (and H1) aren't actually Computations in the first
place, so fail to qualify as Deciders.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-05 00:34 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <877dfvoqyn.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #38875 |
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 the incorrect argument you are making, nor is it the reason your argument is incorrect. It's just a technical detail. I can't help being surprised by how hard it is for you to write a correct sentence about any of this stuff despite years of "study". I blame myself for much of this. Rather than get sucked into an endless spiral of error correcting, I let so many things slip by with vague words like "yes, it is effectively H" when I should really be very much more precise. > The exact same thing occurs with the > Linz H that simulates... Linz's H does not simulate anything. In Linz, H denotes either a non-existent Turing machine or, more accurately, any member of an empty class of TMs. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-04 22:58 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <9K-dneA4-Zv53an8nZ2dnUU7-a2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #38887 |
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. This seems to be another honest mistake on your part. https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf > the incorrect argument you are making, nor is it the reason your > argument is incorrect. It's just a technical detail. I can't help > being surprised by how hard it is for you to write a correct sentence > about any of this stuff despite years of "study". > > I blame myself for much of this. Rather than get sucked into an endless > spiral of error correcting, I let so many things slip by with vague > words like "yes, it is effectively H" when I should really be very much > more precise. > >> The exact same thing occurs with the >> Linz H that simulates... > > Linz's H does not simulate anything. In Linz, H denotes either a > non-existent Turing machine or, more accurately, any member of an empty > class of TMs. > -- 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 | 2021-09-05 06:44 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <Sb1ZI.24051$nR3.19188@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #38891 |
On 9/4/21 11:58 PM, olcott wrote: > 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. This seems to be another honest mistake on > your part. https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf Read it again. State qy was modified, so the machine decending down from H^.qx has been modified in the change to qy, > >> the incorrect argument you are making, nor is it the reason your >> argument is incorrect. It's just a technical detail. I can't help >> being surprised by how hard it is for you to write a correct sentence >> about any of this stuff despite years of "study". >> >> I blame myself for much of this. Rather than get sucked into an endless >> spiral of error correcting, I let so many things slip by with vague >> words like "yes, it is effectively H" when I should really be very much >> more precise. >> >>> The exact same thing occurs with the >>> Linz H that simulates... >> >> Linz's H does not simulate anything. In Linz, H denotes either a >> non-existent Turing machine or, more accurately, any member of an empty >> class of TMs. >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-05 16:22 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <87o897m4hv.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #38891 |
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'. Please have the last word and say I'm wrong again. I won't reply. It's pointless arguing technical details with you because you just don't do details, technical or otherwise. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-05 10:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <ac6dnbMHMLWOf6n8nZ2dnUU7-YvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #38902 |
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. Linz says that Ĥ <is> H with some states prepended and appended. > Please have the last word and say I'm wrong again. I won't reply. It's > pointless arguing technical details with you because you just don't do > details, technical or otherwise. > -- 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 | 2021-09-05 17:24 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <877dfvm1m0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #38903 |
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. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-05 11:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <uaCdnS6xzcNAaan8nZ2dnUU7-eHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #38908 |
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. PREPENDING copying STATES TO H From H' we construct another Turing machine Ĥ. This new machine takes as input WM, copies it, and then behaves exactly like H'. https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-05 12:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <x9udnQA4muLsZqn8nZ2dnUU7-N_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #38912 |
On 9/5/2021 11:48 AM, olcott wrote: > 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. > > PREPENDING copying STATES TO H > From H' we construct another Turing machine Ĥ. > This new machine takes as input WM, copies it, > and then behaves exactly like H'. > > https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf > we want to convey that the transitions between state qy and the new states qa and qb are to be made... THUS INDICATING THAT THE qy STATE OF H HAS NOT BEEN ABOLISHED MERELY THAT THE NEW STATES OF qa AND qb HAVE BEEN APPENDED TO THE qy STATE. -- 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 | 2021-09-05 13:21 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <207ZI.28707$z%4.1977@fx37.iad> |
| In reply to | #38915 |
On 9/5/21 1:16 PM, olcott wrote: > On 9/5/2021 11:48 AM, olcott wrote: >> 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. >> >> PREPENDING copying STATES TO H >> From H' we construct another Turing machine Ĥ. >> This new machine takes as input WM, copies it, >> and then behaves exactly like H'. >> >> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf >> > > we want to convey that the > transitions between state qy and the > new states qa and qb are to be made... > > THUS INDICATING THAT THE qy STATE OF H HAS NOT > BEEN ABOLISHED MERELY THAT THE NEW STATES OF qa > AND qb HAVE BEEN APPENDED TO THE qy STATE. > But in H, qy WAS a Terminal State. It basically had the code 'Halt' (to put it in simple terms you might be able to understand) In H', qy is a trasitory state, It basically is now the code GOTO qa. Thus qy has CHANGED, so it is no longer the same code as was in H, so H' doesn't just have a full copy of H. It is H with a described change, but having been changed, it no longer is exactly H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-05 12:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <G7adnQdZJKkEYqn8nZ2dnUU7-LPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #38916 |
On 9/5/2021 12:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 9/5/21 1:16 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 9/5/2021 11:48 AM, olcott wrote: >>> 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. >>> >>> PREPENDING copying STATES TO H >>> From H' we construct another Turing machine Ĥ. >>> This new machine takes as input WM, copies it, >>> and then behaves exactly like H'. >>> >>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf >>> >> >> we want to convey that the >> transitions between state qy and the >> new states qa and qb are to be made... >> >> THUS INDICATING THAT THE qy STATE OF H HAS NOT >> BEEN ABOLISHED MERELY THAT THE NEW STATES OF qa >> AND qb HAVE BEEN APPENDED TO THE qy STATE. >> > > But in H, qy WAS a Terminal State. It basically had the code 'Halt' (to > put it in simple terms you might be able to understand) > > In H', qy is a trasitory state, It basically is now the code GOTO qa. > > Thus qy has CHANGED, so it is no longer the same code as was in H, so H' > doesn't just have a full copy of H. > > It is H with a described change, but having been changed, it no longer > is exactly H. > The whole point of this exchange was to get Ben to realize that he simply is not paying enough attention. He said that Ĥ does not have a copy of H at its Ĥ.qx state and indeed Ĥ does have a copy of H at its Ĥ.qx state. He is not paying enough attention because he is focused on winning an argument at the expense of truth instead of an actual honest dialogue. -- 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 | 2021-09-05 14:26 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <JZ7ZI.12404$dI3.4646@fx10.iad> |
| In reply to | #38917 |
On 9/5/21 1:34 PM, olcott wrote: > On 9/5/2021 12:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 9/5/21 1:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 9/5/2021 11:48 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> 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. >>>> >>>> PREPENDING copying STATES TO H >>>> From H' we construct another Turing machine Ĥ. >>>> This new machine takes as input WM, copies it, >>>> and then behaves exactly like H'. >>>> >>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf >>>> >>> >>> we want to convey that the >>> transitions between state qy and the >>> new states qa and qb are to be made... >>> >>> THUS INDICATING THAT THE qy STATE OF H HAS NOT >>> BEEN ABOLISHED MERELY THAT THE NEW STATES OF qa >>> AND qb HAVE BEEN APPENDED TO THE qy STATE. >>> >> >> But in H, qy WAS a Terminal State. It basically had the code 'Halt' (to >> put it in simple terms you might be able to understand) >> >> In H', qy is a trasitory state, It basically is now the code GOTO qa. >> >> Thus qy has CHANGED, so it is no longer the same code as was in H, so H' >> doesn't just have a full copy of H. >> >> It is H with a described change, but having been changed, it no longer >> is exactly H. >> > > The whole point of this exchange was to get Ben to realize that he > simply is not paying enough attention. No, you are the one not paying attention. > > He said that Ĥ does not have a copy of H at its Ĥ.qx state and indeed Ĥ > does have a copy of H at its Ĥ.qx state. No, since H^ doesn't contain a complete exact copy of the machine H, it is correct to say that doesn't contain a copy there. If you pay attention to the fine details, definition of what it there has been changed enough that if you want to be precise, it is correct that there isn't a complete accurate copy of H present at the H^.qx state. Yes, we might colloquially say there is a copy there, but to be precise, it is just a machine based on the algorithm of H, not an exact copy of H. > > He is not paying enough attention because he is focused on winning an > argument at the expense of truth instead of an actual honest dialogue. > Seems more like YOU are the one trying to create a win when you don't have it. Maybe if you understood things enough, you would know how to give a bit of ground and look intelligent. I think the key thing that you miss what Ben is saying. You have been making some absurd claim that an 'exact copy' might behave differently than the original. It has been pointed out that this absolutely is not true for Turing Machines. You made a statement trying to justify the difference in behavior by it only needing a copy, and that that somehow didn't imply that the machines would behave the same. In actuality, What is in H^ isn't an exact copy of the machine H, but a copy of the essential algorithm, made in a way that guarantees that this 'copy' must give exactly the same answer to H^ as the independent run of H. Because of the special nature of Turing Machines, this is always possible to define. H^ can be constructed to get the answer from H of what it thinks H^(H^) will do, and is able to do the opposite, making H wrong. This is based on the basic properties of Turing Machines. This is unavoidable. The rules of Turing Machines allow the construction of a machine that a given machine can't decide correctly. You call it 'Pathological Self-Reference', but really it is just allowable referencing. The only 'Pathology' is to the concept that everything True is Knowable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-05 13:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <F_WdnfnrBq75jKj8nZ2dnUU7-bHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #38918 |
On 9/5/2021 1:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 9/5/21 1:34 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 9/5/2021 12:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 9/5/21 1:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 9/5/2021 11:48 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> PREPENDING copying STATES TO H >>>>> From H' we construct another Turing machine Ĥ. >>>>> This new machine takes as input WM, copies it, >>>>> and then behaves exactly like H'. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf >>>>> >>>> >>>> we want to convey that the >>>> transitions between state qy and the >>>> new states qa and qb are to be made... >>>> >>>> THUS INDICATING THAT THE qy STATE OF H HAS NOT >>>> BEEN ABOLISHED MERELY THAT THE NEW STATES OF qa >>>> AND qb HAVE BEEN APPENDED TO THE qy STATE. >>>> >>> >>> But in H, qy WAS a Terminal State. It basically had the code 'Halt' (to >>> put it in simple terms you might be able to understand) >>> >>> In H', qy is a trasitory state, It basically is now the code GOTO qa. >>> >>> Thus qy has CHANGED, so it is no longer the same code as was in H, so H' >>> doesn't just have a full copy of H. >>> >>> It is H with a described change, but having been changed, it no longer >>> is exactly H. >>> >> >> The whole point of this exchange was to get Ben to realize that he >> simply is not paying enough attention. > > No, you are the one not paying attention. > >> >> He said that Ĥ does not have a copy of H at its Ĥ.qx state and indeed Ĥ >> does have a copy of H at its Ĥ.qx state. > > No, since H^ doesn't contain a complete exact copy of the machine H, it > is correct to say that doesn't contain a copy there. > See you are not paying attention either. You also have indicated that your purpose is to win an argument rather than have any honest dialogue. The quoted words of Linz say that Ĥ is constructed entirely from first appending states qa and qb to H and then prepending copying states to H, thus leaving exactly H in the middle. -- 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 | 2021-09-05 15:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <YW8ZI.33439$Dr.20625@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #38920 |
On 9/5/21 2:50 PM, olcott wrote: > On 9/5/2021 1:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 9/5/21 1:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 9/5/2021 12:21 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 9/5/21 1:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 9/5/2021 11:48 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> PREPENDING copying STATES TO H >>>>>> From H' we construct another Turing machine Ĥ. >>>>>> This new machine takes as input WM, copies it, >>>>>> and then behaves exactly like H'. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> we want to convey that the >>>>> transitions between state qy and the >>>>> new states qa and qb are to be made... >>>>> >>>>> THUS INDICATING THAT THE qy STATE OF H HAS NOT >>>>> BEEN ABOLISHED MERELY THAT THE NEW STATES OF qa >>>>> AND qb HAVE BEEN APPENDED TO THE qy STATE. >>>>> >>>> >>>> But in H, qy WAS a Terminal State. It basically had the code 'Halt' (to >>>> put it in simple terms you might be able to understand) >>>> >>>> In H', qy is a trasitory state, It basically is now the code GOTO qa. >>>> >>>> Thus qy has CHANGED, so it is no longer the same code as was in H, >>>> so H' >>>> doesn't just have a full copy of H. >>>> >>>> It is H with a described change, but having been changed, it no longer >>>> is exactly H. >>>> >>> >>> The whole point of this exchange was to get Ben to realize that he >>> simply is not paying enough attention. >> >> No, you are the one not paying attention. >> >>> >>> He said that Ĥ does not have a copy of H at its Ĥ.qx state and indeed Ĥ >>> does have a copy of H at its Ĥ.qx state. >> >> No, since H^ doesn't contain a complete exact copy of the machine H, it >> is correct to say that doesn't contain a copy there. >> > See you are not paying attention either. You also have indicated that > your purpose is to win an argument rather than have any honest dialogue. > > The quoted words of Linz say that Ĥ is constructed entirely from first > appending states qa and qb to H and then prepending copying states to H, > thus leaving exactly H in the middle. > Check your quotes, From the article YOU post: > Next, we modify H to produce a Turing machine H' If you MODIFY something, it isn't exactly there anymore. The code of state qy has been changed, it used to be a terminal state, and now it is a transitory state moving on to qa. Look at the diagram, it used to have a double circle, it now has arrows going out of it. This means that there is no EXACT copy of H in H' Unless you thing the HALT instruction is identical to the GOTO instruction, it has changed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-05 20:48 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <87mtoqls6m.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #38912 |
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? (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.) -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-05 15:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <lv2dnYRnU58nuqj8nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #38924 |
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. This is covered in depth in the operating system course of every CS undergraduate degree. I have an advantage in that I have been able to keep this material fresh in my mind by writing operating system code. 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. 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. > (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. It needs 1000 tape head moves. -- 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 | 2021-09-05 17:45 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <TTaZI.71521$Kv2.39407@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #38927 |
On 9/5/21 4:25 PM, olcott wrote: > 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. > This is covered in depth in the operating system course of every > CS undergraduate degree. I have an advantage in that I have > been able to keep this material fresh in my mind by writing > operating system code. But this isn't an operating system problem, as Turing Machines don't have an Operating System, so any complexities caused by such an Operation System are out of scope for the operations. > > 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. But this isn't an x86 question, but a Turing Machine question. any complexity of x86 operation is out of scope as it can't affect the Turing Machine it is supposedly the Computational Equivalent. You also clearly break the basic definition of x86 code, as the trace of a call doesn't follow the call itself. > > 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. Nope, the original H has beed edited so it no longer exists as its full original code. The coding to declare qy to be a final state has been removed and replaced with code to transition to qa. Since part of H isn't there, it is correct to say that the original H isn't there. Maybe in the Computational Equivalence, this moves to outside the opcodes that encode the procedure, but it does still change the Turing Machine, > >> (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. > It needs 1000 tape head moves. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-06 00:14 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] |
| Message-ID | <874kaylinu.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #38927 |
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! > 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. > 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. > 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. > 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. >> (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. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 22 of 37 — ← Prev page 1 … 20 21 [22] 23 24 … 37 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web