Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #36666 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-07-19 21:46 +0100 |
| Last post | 2021-07-20 14:17 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 525 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-19 21:46 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 14:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-20 21:06 +0200
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 13:43 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 13:56 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 14:16 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 14:50 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 22:33 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 23:30 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-21 13:17 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-22 13:35 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-22 22:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 14:22 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 14:30 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-23 23:15 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 15:28 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-23 16:49 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 16:09 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-24 02:34 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 21:53 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 21:54 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-08-05 15:37 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 17:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-05 11:41 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-05 11:48 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-08-05 20:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 13:55 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-05 15:51 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-08-05 23:20 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 13:53 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 22:21 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:42 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:48 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:49 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:52 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 21:58 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 16:10 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 16:14 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 16:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-24 12:50 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-24 00:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 16:59 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 00:42 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 12:55 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 13:13 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 14:08 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-24 18:07 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 01:50 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-24 20:58 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 04:03 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 04:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-25 13:34 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 17:14 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 10:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-25 13:10 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 11:31 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-25 13:22 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-25 12:43 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 12:25 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 12:46 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 13:04 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-25 16:58 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 20:38 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 20:52 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 13:54 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-25 22:53 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox rather than contradiction ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 21:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox rather than contradiction ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-25 23:09 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:20 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 07:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 10:09 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 11:41 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 11:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 14:40 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 15:29 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-26 11:16 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 13:57 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 13:55 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 15:34 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 14:53 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 16:01 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 19:14 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 18:21 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:03 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 19:24 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:30 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 20:34 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 22:18 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 21:24 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 22:31 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 21:55 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 23:39 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 22:59 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 10:27 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 22:22 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 02:42 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 10:24 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 08:54 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( finally quit lying ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 11:05 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( finally quit lying ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 09:29 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 12:07 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 11:17 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 13:29 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 11:47 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 14:10 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-27 12:58 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 16:23 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 11:01 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 09:25 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 21:38 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 16:14 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 16:20 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 15:04 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 00:33 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-27 11:16 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 12:31 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-27 13:42 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 17:20 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 22:11 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-27 21:39 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 09:09 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 09:31 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 11:38 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 10:08 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 13:35 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 12:47 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 14:07 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 12:56 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 17:25 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 22:25 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 21:36 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 23:09 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 21:50 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 23:57 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 23:10 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 13:07 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 11:52 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 13:52 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 22:35 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 12:40 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 15:06 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 13:35 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 17:36 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 22:51 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 21:08 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 22:15 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 23:31 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 23:00 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 12:39 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 12:15 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 13:50 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 22:18 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 13:15 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 12:25 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 13:55 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 17:50 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 16:58 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 18:27 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 18:25 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 19:54 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-29 18:08 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 19:25 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 23:34 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 22:44 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 20:42 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-30 18:57 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 21:08 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-30 20:54 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 09:14 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 08:02 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 10:20 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 08:41 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 12:00 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 11:25 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 13:52 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 12:14 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 14:41 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 12:54 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 15:39 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 15:11 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-31 15:37 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 08:26 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 11:35 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 11:31 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 13:57 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 12:23 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 14:52 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 13:02 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 15:43 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 15:18 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-30 08:54 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 10:58 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-30 13:23 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-29 16:15 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 09:34 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 02:41 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 08:56 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 09:37 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 22:04 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 16:22 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 15:06 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 21:54 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-27 11:21 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 21:17 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 20:25 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 19:36 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 18:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 21:28 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 21:46 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 23:42 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-26 01:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 18:20 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:32 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 07:57 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 09:57 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-27 02:17 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:41 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 19:57 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 08:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-27 00:48 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:06 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 19:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 22:44 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 17:08 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 15:22 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 18:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 20:52 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 00:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 18:35 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 01:58 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 20:54 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 20:56 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 01:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 20:00 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-29 18:11 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 02:52 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 21:08 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 12:39 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 09:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 20:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 21:28 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 19:38 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 13:39 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 09:54 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 20:58 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 20:16 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-31 23:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 21:20 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 11:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-01 05:12 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 13:41 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-01 07:25 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 16:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-01 11:41 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 20:26 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 14:45 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 13:28 -0700
Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 11:02 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 10:02 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 08:21 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 17:00 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 10:48 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 19:51 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 17:31 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 00:23 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 22:33 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 22:56 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 23:12 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 20:17 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:30 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-06 03:36 +0100
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 21:50 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 01:34 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 19:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 09:45 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 08:24 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 22:45 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 22:12 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-02 20:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 15:53 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-03 01:11 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 19:55 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-03 02:45 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 21:11 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-02 21:57 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 13:53 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 11:15 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 20:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 17:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 00:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 22:18 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 23:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 02:02 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 07:07 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:35 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 23:15 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 20:48 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-06 03:35 +0100
Page 6 conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 21:46 -0500
Re: Page 6 conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 01:38 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 22:01 -0500
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 22:13 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 22:29 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 22:23 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 21:44 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 21:56 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:00 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-08-03 21:12 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 22:16 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:25 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 22:36 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:55 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 23:36 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 10:14 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 21:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 07:13 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ]( Honest Dialogue ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 10:11 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:29 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 22:35 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 19:37 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 15:37 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 23:23 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 22:37 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 22:48 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 23:14 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 20:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:41 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-06 03:36 +0100
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 21:54 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 22:37 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 22:44 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-08-05 22:51 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 01:34 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-09 17:32 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-09 21:14 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 01:42 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 19:46 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 20:06 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 02:41 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 20:53 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 03:26 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 21:40 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 16:04 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 10:10 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 10:15 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 00:04 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 18:16 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 02:20 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 21:03 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 21:09 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben's key param agreement ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 21:08 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-11 17:32 -0600
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 18:40 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-11 23:11 -0600
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 01:36 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 07:24 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 08:40 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 10:50 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-13 01:58 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 08:30 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 22:01 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 16:15 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 10:29 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. (fixed type) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 21:42 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. // fixed typo (link added) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 23:36 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 09:28 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 09:58 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 17:10 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 11:52 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 01:35 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 19:40 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 19:44 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 21:00 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 15:36 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 22:10 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 16:26 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 00:00 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 18:28 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 18:33 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 01:26 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 19:49 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 02:05 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 20:19 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 21:44 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 02:49 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 21:20 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 10:01 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 08:35 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 21:20 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 15:56 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 22:28 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 16:33 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 23:06 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 17:12 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 23:25 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 17:47 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2021-08-13 16:54 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 22:35 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-14 13:22 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-13 20:41 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 17:24 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 01:53 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 20:14 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 02:51 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 21:21 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 22:57 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 09:53 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 08:31 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 21:38 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 22:09 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 14:53 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 01:01 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 19:26 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 02:28 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 18:07 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 02:35 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Halting Problem is solved for Ĥ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 21:14 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 07:49 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 23:40 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 11:48 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-11 04:09 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 22:56 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 22:13 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-02 20:11 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-31 15:47 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 21:52 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 02:18 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 21:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 12:00 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 09:35 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 20:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 19:42 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-30 18:27 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-31 22:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 16:57 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-31 15:48 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 11:39 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 22:17 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 20:36 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-02 17:31 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 13:16 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 13:25 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-03 01:20 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 20:01 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-02 22:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-02 22:29 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 08:00 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-03 07:33 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 10:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 11:11 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 14:26 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 14:08 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 15:47 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 14:56 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 16:03 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 15:26 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 16:50 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 16:35 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 19:42 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 19:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 20:24 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 21:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 22:30 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 22:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:03 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 22:08 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 10:48 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 21:52 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 09:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:43 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ][ André refuses an honest dialogue ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 09:04 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ][ André refuses an honest dialogue ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:41 -0500
H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct [ André refuses an honest dialogue ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 09:07 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 07:36 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-31 23:53 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 21:47 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 20:07 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:46 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 08:05 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-25 21:32 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 15:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 15:26 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-25 16:56 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 23:21 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 23:44 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 17:18 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 19:15 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 23:04 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-26 11:06 +0000
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 14:17 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 06:29 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 14:32 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 07:08 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 15:36 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 08:32 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-26 18:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-26 11:38 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 19:31 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-26 13:42 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-26 22:49 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 23:57 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-27 13:47 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 23:16 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-27 12:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-27 12:48 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 17:25 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-28 11:32 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-26 15:13 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-24 20:35 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 10:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 07:10 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 12:56 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-22 14:52 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 14:20 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 14:34 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 05:46 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-21 14:12 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 06:27 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-21 16:28 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-20 15:14 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 14:17 -0700
Page 11 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 27 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 15:06 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] |
| Message-ID | <sdskcv$925$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37220 |
On 7/28/21 2:22 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/28/2021 4:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: >> >>> On 7/28/21 6:56 AM, olcott wrote: >> >>>> Any system that divides all inputs into those having the pathological >>>> self-reference(Olcott 2004) error and those not having this error does >>>> refute Rice's theorem no matter how it accomplishes this feat. >>>> >>>> I am working on creating the code for this. >>> >>> But is that a 'semantic' property or a 'syntactic' property. It seems to >>> be a syntactic property, and thus not within realm of Rice's theorem. >> >> PO is unable to state what PSR is in any form that can be used to >> resolve this formally, but there are, as you suggest, at least two >> reasonable meanings. One is the syntactic property of the input >> encoding the "hat" version of the partial decider and the other is an >> input that is functionally equivalent to the first case. Rice applies >> to the latter but not the former (as you know). >> >> Even if he can't say it, I think he means the latter, or at least he did >> 9 years ago when this topic was last "hashed out" (i.e. everyone told PO >> he was wrong, and PO ignored them and refused to answer any questions). >> Oddly he appeared to claim to have such a decider back then. Maybe he >> left it on the bus. >> > > Pathological Input to a halt decider is stipulated to mean any input > that was defined to do the opposite of whatever its corresponding halt > decider decides as Sipser describes: > > Now we construct a new Turing machine D with H as a subroutine. > This new TM calls H to determine what M does when the input to > M is its own description ⟨M⟩. Once D has determined this information, > it does the opposite. (Sipser:1997:165) > > Right, but even so defined, the problem still requires the decider to get this case right. This case HAS a real answer to the actual problem as stated, it just isn't possible for THIS decider to give that answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 21:54 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] |
| Message-ID | <87tuke6txp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37184 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > Any system that divides all inputs into those having the pathological > self-reference(Olcott 2004) error and those not having this error does > refute Rice's theorem no matter how it accomplishes this feat. > > I am working on creating the code for this. Looking back in the record, you claimed to have that in 2012. Did you lose it? Or maybe you just thought you had such a thing? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-27 11:21 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] |
| Message-ID | <sdpfb9$mkg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37137 |
On 7/27/2021 9:24 AM, olcott wrote: <SNIP> > No one has ever gotten as far as I have. No one has ever previously > shown that the input to a simulating halt decider specifies infinitely > nested simulation to this halt decider in the HP counter-example cases. I'm glad to see you have something to take pride in. However, lets make sure we all know what that accomplishment really is: You have set a world record in number of wrong conclusions reached by a record long chain of improper inferences. You have also set a world record for turning a deaf ear to all of those trying-to-help people who have pointed out the mistakes at each and every step. I have not cut the set of newsgroups this message will reach: I think all will rejoice at your success and hope you will retire into silence. Should we contact Guinness? Or will you take care of that? Alright everyone, lets hear a loud cheer for PO! -- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 21:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <4NLLI.11167$yN6.4759@fx13.iad> |
| In reply to | #37126 |
On 7/26/21 8:31 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/26/2021 10:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2021-07-26 21:18, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/26/2021 9:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> >>>> How on earth would that refute Rice's theorem? >>>> >>>> I *think* that by H(P,P) != P(P) you're *trying* (badly) to say 'the >>>> answer given by H(P, P) does not match the halting behaviour of P(P). >>>> >>>> But *we* would be the ones recognizing these counterexamples. That >>>> your machine gets these cases wrong means the machine certainly >>>> isn't recognizing them. >>>> >>> >>> When the machine is able to reject these inputs it defeats Rice's >>> theorem. You must be clueless on this aspect. >> >> But from everything you've said thus far, it *doesn't* identify which >> non-halting cases legitimately non-halting and which are your >> allegedly "pathological" inputs. It simply gets the latter cases >> wrong, but it doesn't know *which* cases it gets wrong. >> > > I have explained this totally several times now. > if H(P,P) != P(P) > incorrect input > else > correct input. But your H is incapable of determining this. There are 4 possible templates for P THe H^ of Linz which act contrary. A reverse of that which does exactly what H says. A version that Always Halts. A version that Never Halts. You algorithm, because it never gets past the simulation loop, can't tell these apart so won't be correct in rejecting the contrary case. Also, the problem doesn't provide for an 'incorrect' input case, and actually CAN'T in its proper form, as H^ is only 'incorrect' for the H that it was built from, if H does return an answer for H(P,P) then some other decider can PROPERLY decide what P(P) does, and since Halting is a property of the computation alone, its 'right' answer can't be different for H then for this other decider. This says the concept of allowing H to say 'incorrect input' is flawed. It also doesn't achieve your goal, as many other proofs, not based on this form of contrary action still hold, so we still have the fact that there exist machines that NO machine can be proved to correctly decide. > >> We know that it gets P(P) wrong. It doesn't. >> >> And you still haven't answered my question: >> >> How can the claim that H(P, P)==0 be justified *in terms of the >> definition of halting* and in terms of the *actual behaviour* of P(P). >> >> André >> > > It is definitely true that the pure simulation of the input to H(P,P) > never halts. At this point I know that you know this and are merely a liar. > > That is incorrect, as YOU have shown a simulation if P(P), which is the input to H(P,P) that comes to a Halt (as long as H(P,P) returns the non-halting answer). If what you mean is that no H can reach the halting point of H(P,P) that doesn't really mean anything, as we KNOW that IF H does eventually aborts its simulation and return non-Halting, the the P for THAT H will Halt, and thus show THAT H to be wrong, and if H NEVER aborts is simulation, THAT H never answers H(P,P) and the IT is proved not a correct decider. In both cases, and thus for ALL H, we have shown that H is wrong. If some H existed that DID reach a Halting state in simulation H(P,P) then that H could correctly return Halting, but such an H is impossible, because we know that if H does return Halting, then H^ (called P) will go to its never halting state, so no H can ever reach that point BECAUSE H^ is built so no H can be correct in deciding it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 20:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <o0LLI.18269$Ei1.12806@fx07.iad> |
| In reply to | #37123 |
On 7/26/21 8:18 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/26/2021 9:34 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> >> But *we* would be the ones recognizing these counterexamples. That >> your machine gets these cases wrong means the machine certainly isn't >> recognizing them. >> > > When the machine is able to reject these inputs it defeats Rice's > theorem. You must be clueless on this aspect. > > When the machine is able to reject these inputs it defeats Rice's > theorem. You must be clueless on this aspect. > > When the machine is able to reject these inputs it defeats Rice's > theorem. You must be clueless on this aspect. It isn't ALLOWED to reject the inputs and still be a proper decider. All that is doing is admitting defeat.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 19:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <7jKLI.16509$qL.13263@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #37117 |
On 7/26/21 6:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/26/2021 8:24 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-07-26 19:03, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/26/2021 7:21 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-07-26 18:14, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/26/2021 2:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-07-26 12:57, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the exact same way it is a mistake to take the fact that the P
>>>>>>> of int main() { P(P); } definitely reaches its halting state as
>>>>>>> an indication that it is a halting computation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You seem to have a serious difficulty processing definitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The *definition* of a halting computation is a computation which
>>>>>> reaches one of its final states in a finite number of steps. This
>>>>>> refers only to the *actual* computation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This definition exhaustively partitions the set of computations
>>>>>> into two mutually-exclusive groups. If we observe that a
>>>>>> computation such as P(P) reaches a final state in a finite number
>>>>>> of steps, it goes in the halting group. Otherwise, it goes into
>>>>>> the non-halting group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The definition is clear and unambiguous.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It does not mention anything about simulators or aborted simulations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It makes no exceptions for 'pathological' inputs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> None-the-less if pathological inputs can be recognized this refutes
>>>>> Rice.
>>>>> None-the-less if pathological inputs can be recognized this refutes
>>>>> Rice.
>>>>> None-the-less if pathological inputs can be recognized this refutes
>>>>> Rice.
>>>>> None-the-less if pathological inputs can be recognized this refutes
>>>>> Rice.
Nope, because just because H recognises that it will be wrong, doesn't
let it give the real right answer, all it can do is admit that it will
be wrong. Rice is still upheld.
>>>>
>>>> There *are no* patholological inputs. There are simply inputs that H
>>>> gets wrong. There's nothing absolutely 'pathological' about that.
>>>
>>> If my system recognizes whatever you want to call it the cases where
>>> the halt decider gets wrong, this refutes Rice.
>>
>> What does that unsubstantiated claim have to do with the question I'd
>> asked, which was:
>>
>> How can the claim that H(P, P)==0 be justified *in terms of the
>> definition of halting* and in terms of the *actual behaviour* of P(P).
>>
>
> That does not currently matter, as long as we can consistently use
> H(P,P) != P(P) to detect and reject the halting problem counter-examples
> we have refuted Rice's theorem.
Except that if P converts this new 'invalid' result to Halting (or
Non-Halting) behavior, then H(P,P) is still != P(P), as Invalid is not
the same as Halting (or non-halting). H is STILL wrong, even if it
announces that it knows it will be wrong.
And, as long as H does return an answer (or can be proved to never
return an answer) then another decider H1, can get the right answer for
P(P) by doing H1(P,P), so it isn't like P doesn't have a right answer.
>
> Is it possible for you to detect when the subject has been changed or do
> you have a hard-coded robot brain?
>
Also, you STILL haven't retuted Rice, as you still haven't shown that H
got the right answer.
>> P(P) meets this definition. Therefore P(P) halts.
>>
>> If your your system is really capable of recogonizing the inputs that
>> it gets wrong, why does it still get them wrong?
>>
>> André
>>
>
> Self-contradictory input is incorrect in the same way that the liar
> paradox is neither true nor false.
>
WRONG. For any specific H that answers H(P,P) then there IS a right
answer for "Does P(P) Halt?". Thus the proper question for the Halting
Problem is NOT a contradiction.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 18:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <DXILI.19989$o_5.16431@fx29.iad> |
| In reply to | #37109 |
On 7/26/21 5:14 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/26/2021 2:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-07-26 12:57, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> In the exact same way it is a mistake to take the fact that the P of
>>> int main() { P(P); } definitely reaches its halting state as an
>>> indication that it is a halting computation.
>>
>> You seem to have a serious difficulty processing definitions.
>>
>> The *definition* of a halting computation is a computation which
>> reaches one of its final states in a finite number of steps. This
>> refers only to the *actual* computation.
>>
>> This definition exhaustively partitions the set of computations into
>> two mutually-exclusive groups. If we observe that a computation such
>> as P(P) reaches a final state in a finite number of steps, it goes in
>> the halting group. Otherwise, it goes into the non-halting group.
>>
>> The definition is clear and unambiguous.
>>
>> It does not mention anything about simulators or aborted simulations.
>>
>> It makes no exceptions for 'pathological' inputs.
>>
>
> None-the-less if pathological inputs can be recognized this refutes Rice.
> None-the-less if pathological inputs can be recognized this refutes Rice.
> None-the-less if pathological inputs can be recognized this refutes Rice.
> None-the-less if pathological inputs can be recognized this refutes Rice.
>
No, because the RULES (i.e. the DEFINITON) of a Halt Decider is that it
has to answer that the machine Halts or that it is Non-Halting.
It doesn't have the OPTION of saying 'invalid' because no input is
actually invalid.
All that detecting the 'pathological' state means is that H KNOWS it
will be wrong with what ever answer it gives.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 21:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Ob2dneXfOsPHVGD9nZ2dnUU78aHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #37032 |
On 25/07/2021 18:40, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:14:20 UTC+1, Mike Terry wrote: >> >> I think this is all a bit like Malcolm suggesting that PO is raising >> "interesting ideas" that might be useful with more study, or that some >> basic idea of PO's is "really quite clever...". It is NOT. PO has no >> incling of those possibilities and really no interest in them. He is >> simply saying things he naively thinks are true, without any logical >> reasoning going on. No cleverness at all. He is not "performing a >> magic trick", where he will pull a rabit out of a hat - he genuinely >> believes he is refuting the Linz proof, no tricks. Pretending otherwise >> may be being nice to PO, making him feel better, but is ultimately >> unhelpful IMO. I'd say it seems like "dishonest niceness" to me. (But >> maybe Malcolm really thinks PO is producing worthwhile results, or is on >> the path to that, in which case it's just being "actually nice"!) >> > I've always been very clear that I haven't yet seen from PO anything that > constitutes a refutation of Linz. However when we have, for example, the > "H is the operating system" ruse, I do tend to say "that's a clever cheat" > rather than "how could you make such a simple and obvious error?". > Largely because it's a nicer way of conveying essentially the same > information. > > I did say recently that PO had constructed his own paradox. It's this. If > H is simulating halt decider, and is called on H, it creates a series of > nested recursions. If it doesn't detect the situation, it never halts. If > it does detect the situation and terminates the simulations, it halts. > However if it halts, the nested recursions were not infinite. Right, that's a bit like something I pointed out to PO last year. Such an emulation-based (putative) decider may have a number of tests in its stepping loop. Some may be /sound/, like a properly implemented tight-loop test, or a test might be unsound in that it incorrectly decides halting for a non-halting input or vice-versa. The sound tests might match and make correct decisions when examining particular inputs, BUT it's sort of weird that the when H examines (P,P), the /sound/ tests "mysteriously" never ever match! The only tests that will ever match are those that are unsound... If there are /only/ sound tests in the loop, none of them will match and H(P,P) will never make its decision and halt! Of course that would disqualify H as a decider. This applies for PO and his "detecting infinite recursions" test, however much he believes his test to be sound... I've told him that a reviewer will Mike. > > I do wonder if this could form the nucleus of an another proof that > halting is undecidable. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 21:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tOudnQr4N_JfUGD9nZ2dnUU78fHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #37049 |
On 25/07/2021 21:28, Mike Terry wrote: Pressed Send too soon. :( > On 25/07/2021 18:40, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:14:20 UTC+1, Mike Terry wrote: >>> >>> I think this is all a bit like Malcolm suggesting that PO is raising >>> "interesting ideas" that might be useful with more study, or that some >>> basic idea of PO's is "really quite clever...". It is NOT. PO has no >>> incling of those possibilities and really no interest in them. He is >>> simply saying things he naively thinks are true, without any logical >>> reasoning going on. No cleverness at all. He is not "performing a >>> magic trick", where he will pull a rabit out of a hat - he genuinely >>> believes he is refuting the Linz proof, no tricks. Pretending otherwise >>> may be being nice to PO, making him feel better, but is ultimately >>> unhelpful IMO. I'd say it seems like "dishonest niceness" to me. (But >>> maybe Malcolm really thinks PO is producing worthwhile results, or is on >>> the path to that, in which case it's just being "actually nice"!) >>> >> I've always been very clear that I haven't yet seen from PO anything that >> constitutes a refutation of Linz. However when we have, for example, the >> "H is the operating system" ruse, I do tend to say "that's a clever >> cheat" >> rather than "how could you make such a simple and obvious error?". >> Largely because it's a nicer way of conveying essentially the same >> information. >> >> I did say recently that PO had constructed his own paradox. It's this. If >> H is simulating halt decider, and is called on H, it creates a series of >> nested recursions. If it doesn't detect the situation, it never halts. If >> it does detect the situation and terminates the simulations, it halts. >> However if it halts, the nested recursions were not infinite. > > Right, that's a bit like something I pointed out to PO last year. Such > an emulation-based (putative) decider may have a number of tests in its > stepping loop. Some may be /sound/, like a properly implemented > tight-loop test, or a test might be unsound in that it incorrectly > decides halting for a non-halting input or vice-versa. The sound tests > might match and make correct decisions when examining particular inputs, > BUT it's sort of weird that the when H examines (P,P), the /sound/ tests > "mysteriously" never ever match! The only tests that will ever match > are those that are unsound... If there are /only/ sound tests in the > loop, none of them will match and H(P,P) will never make its decision > and halt! Of course that would disqualify H as a decider. > > This applies for PO and his "detecting infinite recursions" test, > however much he believes his test to be sound... I've told him that a > reviewer will ...expect to see a /proof/ of the soundness of any test in his loop, if he's going to expect them to take matching of the test as /evidence/ of halting status. (Of course PO can't deliver such a proof.) > > Mike. > >> >> I do wonder if this could form the nucleus of an another proof that >> halting is undecidable. >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 23:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <877dhec8wh.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37052 |
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: > On 25/07/2021 21:28, Mike Terry wrote: > Pressed Send too soon. :( >> On 25/07/2021 18:40, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:14:20 UTC+1, Mike Terry wrote: >>>> >>>> I think this is all a bit like Malcolm suggesting that PO is raising >>>> "interesting ideas" that might be useful with more study, or that some >>>> basic idea of PO's is "really quite clever...". It is NOT. PO has no >>>> incling of those possibilities and really no interest in them. He is >>>> simply saying things he naively thinks are true, without any logical >>>> reasoning going on. No cleverness at all. He is not "performing a >>>> magic trick", where he will pull a rabit out of a hat - he genuinely >>>> believes he is refuting the Linz proof, no tricks. Pretending otherwise >>>> may be being nice to PO, making him feel better, but is ultimately >>>> unhelpful IMO. I'd say it seems like "dishonest niceness" to me. (But >>>> maybe Malcolm really thinks PO is producing worthwhile results, or is on >>>> the path to that, in which case it's just being "actually nice"!) >>>> >>> I've always been very clear that I haven't yet seen from PO anything that >>> constitutes a refutation of Linz. However when we have, for example, the >>> "H is the operating system" ruse, I do tend to say "that's a clever cheat" >>> rather than "how could you make such a simple and obvious error?". >>> Largely because it's a nicer way of conveying essentially the same >>> information. >>> >>> I did say recently that PO had constructed his own paradox. It's this. If >>> H is simulating halt decider, and is called on H, it creates a series of >>> nested recursions. If it doesn't detect the situation, it never halts. If >>> it does detect the situation and terminates the simulations, it halts. >>> However if it halts, the nested recursions were not infinite. >> Right, that's a bit like something I pointed out to PO last year. Such >> an emulation-based (putative) decider may have a number of tests in its stepping loop. Some may be /sound/, like a properly implemented >> tight-loop test, or a test might be unsound in that it incorrectly decides halting for a non-halting input or vice-versa. The sound tests >> might match and make correct decisions when examining particular inputs, BUT it's sort of weird that the when H examines (P,P), the /sound/ tests >> "mysteriously" never ever match! The only tests that will ever match are those that are unsound... If there are /only/ sound tests in the >> loop, none of them will match and H(P,P) will never make its decision and halt! Of course that would disqualify H as a decider. >> This applies for PO and his "detecting infinite recursions" test, >> however much he believes his test to be sound... I've told him that a reviewer will > > ...expect to see a /proof/ of the soundness of any test in his loop, > if he's going to expect them to take matching of the test as > /evidence/ of halting status. (Of course PO can't deliver such a > proof.) Right. And very well put. But he's abandoned almost all pretence at dealing with halting. What makes a sound test has been defined to be what H does. This is the "adapted" criterion for halting. Not halting, but whatever it is he chooses to put into H. When he says that its "impossibly incorrect" (if that's the term, I try to forget such things) this is what he means. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 01:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <BM6dnZyWXYxlYWD9nZ2dnUU78WfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #37057 |
On 25/07/2021 23:42, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>
>> On 25/07/2021 21:28, Mike Terry wrote:
>> Pressed Send too soon. :(
>>> On 25/07/2021 18:40, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:14:20 UTC+1, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this is all a bit like Malcolm suggesting that PO is raising
>>>>> "interesting ideas" that might be useful with more study, or that some
>>>>> basic idea of PO's is "really quite clever...". It is NOT. PO has no
>>>>> incling of those possibilities and really no interest in them. He is
>>>>> simply saying things he naively thinks are true, without any logical
>>>>> reasoning going on. No cleverness at all. He is not "performing a
>>>>> magic trick", where he will pull a rabit out of a hat - he genuinely
>>>>> believes he is refuting the Linz proof, no tricks. Pretending otherwise
>>>>> may be being nice to PO, making him feel better, but is ultimately
>>>>> unhelpful IMO. I'd say it seems like "dishonest niceness" to me. (But
>>>>> maybe Malcolm really thinks PO is producing worthwhile results, or is on
>>>>> the path to that, in which case it's just being "actually nice"!)
>>>>>
>>>> I've always been very clear that I haven't yet seen from PO anything that
>>>> constitutes a refutation of Linz. However when we have, for example, the
>>>> "H is the operating system" ruse, I do tend to say "that's a clever cheat"
>>>> rather than "how could you make such a simple and obvious error?".
>>>> Largely because it's a nicer way of conveying essentially the same
>>>> information.
>>>>
>>>> I did say recently that PO had constructed his own paradox. It's this. If
>>>> H is simulating halt decider, and is called on H, it creates a series of
>>>> nested recursions. If it doesn't detect the situation, it never halts. If
>>>> it does detect the situation and terminates the simulations, it halts.
>>>> However if it halts, the nested recursions were not infinite.
>>> Right, that's a bit like something I pointed out to PO last year. Such
>>> an emulation-based (putative) decider may have a number of tests in its stepping loop. Some may be /sound/, like a properly implemented
>>> tight-loop test, or a test might be unsound in that it incorrectly decides halting for a non-halting input or vice-versa. The sound tests
>>> might match and make correct decisions when examining particular inputs, BUT it's sort of weird that the when H examines (P,P), the /sound/ tests
>>> "mysteriously" never ever match! The only tests that will ever match are those that are unsound... If there are /only/ sound tests in the
>>> loop, none of them will match and H(P,P) will never make its decision and halt! Of course that would disqualify H as a decider.
>>> This applies for PO and his "detecting infinite recursions" test,
>>> however much he believes his test to be sound... I've told him that a reviewer will
>>
>> ...expect to see a /proof/ of the soundness of any test in his loop,
>> if he's going to expect them to take matching of the test as
>> /evidence/ of halting status. (Of course PO can't deliver such a
>> proof.)
>
> Right. And very well put. But he's abandoned almost all pretence at
> dealing with halting. What makes a sound test has been defined to be
> what H does. This is the "adapted" criterion for halting. Not halting,
> but whatever it is he chooses to put into H. When he says that its
> "impossibly incorrect" (if that's the term, I try to forget such things)
> this is what he means.
Perhaps the root problem is that PO REALLY REALLY REALLY believes his
"infinite recursive behaviour" test is sound, for whatever reason. I
mean that his intuition that it is sound is AS STRONG OR STRONGER than
his recent understanding that a machine which runs and transitions into
a halt state is a halting computation.
So he has an example where both
(a) the computation P(P) undeniably reaches a halt state (so is halting)
(b) his test in H(P,P) matches the computation when it runs!!!!!!! so it
is UNDENIABLY "exhibiting infinite recursion" (WTM)
Both principles are equally believed by PO, so both conclusions MUST be
correct! A "paradox"!!! P(P) halts, and yet it exhibits infinite
recursion and so "cannot halt", even though it does. What to do?!
For 99.99999% of people, there would be no dilemma here. Presented with
(a), which is /the definition/ of halting as used in HP proofs, and
given that (b) was an intuition for which they had /no proof/ of its
correctness, the conclusion would be: (a) is correct, so the test in (b)
hasn't worked for some reason. It is unsound.
And 99.3% of those people would be capable of resolving this - they'd
track through the computation in (a), using it to pin down where they
went astray in intuition (b). End of story.
All his recent posts seem to focus on a mixture of one or two totally
banal claims (along the lines of "a computation which never reaches one
of its halt states is a non-halting computation" (LOL), followed by a
bogus claim like "my trace UNDENIABLY proves that the test in (b)
MATCHED!!!!!! and any software engineer who understands x86 will confirm
this - THEREFORE non-halting behaviour HAS been detected so non-halting
is the right answer." (Well, that's what you said with "halting is what
H does", and I've rephrased it for you in 200 words for no real benefit
hehe.)
I don't see any more than that going on - an absolute faith in the
correctness of his unsound (b) test, although he must realise he can't
prove it is sound. I guess he really thinks reviewers will accept it as
obvious, and everybody here is just stupid or deliberately lying due to
being "in rebuttal mode".
Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 18:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <H5oLI.18251$Ei1.16627@fx07.iad> |
| In reply to | #37060 |
On 7/25/21 5:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 25/07/2021 23:42, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: >> >>> On 25/07/2021 21:28, Mike Terry wrote: >>> Pressed Send too soon. :( >>>> On 25/07/2021 18:40, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:14:20 UTC+1, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I think this is all a bit like Malcolm suggesting that PO is raising >>>>>> "interesting ideas" that might be useful with more study, or that >>>>>> some >>>>>> basic idea of PO's is "really quite clever...". It is NOT. PO has no >>>>>> incling of those possibilities and really no interest in them. He is >>>>>> simply saying things he naively thinks are true, without any logical >>>>>> reasoning going on. No cleverness at all. He is not "performing a >>>>>> magic trick", where he will pull a rabit out of a hat - he genuinely >>>>>> believes he is refuting the Linz proof, no tricks. Pretending >>>>>> otherwise >>>>>> may be being nice to PO, making him feel better, but is ultimately >>>>>> unhelpful IMO. I'd say it seems like "dishonest niceness" to me. (But >>>>>> maybe Malcolm really thinks PO is producing worthwhile results, or >>>>>> is on >>>>>> the path to that, in which case it's just being "actually nice"!) >>>>>> >>>>> I've always been very clear that I haven't yet seen from PO >>>>> anything that >>>>> constitutes a refutation of Linz. However when we have, for >>>>> example, the >>>>> "H is the operating system" ruse, I do tend to say "that's a clever >>>>> cheat" >>>>> rather than "how could you make such a simple and obvious error?". >>>>> Largely because it's a nicer way of conveying essentially the same >>>>> information. >>>>> >>>>> I did say recently that PO had constructed his own paradox. It's >>>>> this. If >>>>> H is simulating halt decider, and is called on H, it creates a >>>>> series of >>>>> nested recursions. If it doesn't detect the situation, it never >>>>> halts. If >>>>> it does detect the situation and terminates the simulations, it halts. >>>>> However if it halts, the nested recursions were not infinite. >>>> Right, that's a bit like something I pointed out to PO last year. Such >>>> an emulation-based (putative) decider may have a number of tests in >>>> its stepping loop. Some may be /sound/, like a properly implemented >>>> tight-loop test, or a test might be unsound in that it incorrectly >>>> decides halting for a non-halting input or vice-versa. The sound tests >>>> might match and make correct decisions when examining particular >>>> inputs, BUT it's sort of weird that the when H examines (P,P), the >>>> /sound/ tests >>>> "mysteriously" never ever match! The only tests that will ever >>>> match are those that are unsound... If there are /only/ sound tests >>>> in the >>>> loop, none of them will match and H(P,P) will never make its >>>> decision and halt! Of course that would disqualify H as a decider. >>>> This applies for PO and his "detecting infinite recursions" test, >>>> however much he believes his test to be sound... I've told him that >>>> a reviewer will >>> >>> ...expect to see a /proof/ of the soundness of any test in his loop, >>> if he's going to expect them to take matching of the test as >>> /evidence/ of halting status. (Of course PO can't deliver such a >>> proof.) >> >> Right. And very well put. But he's abandoned almost all pretence at >> dealing with halting. What makes a sound test has been defined to be >> what H does. This is the "adapted" criterion for halting. Not halting, >> but whatever it is he chooses to put into H. When he says that its >> "impossibly incorrect" (if that's the term, I try to forget such things) >> this is what he means. > > Perhaps the root problem is that PO REALLY REALLY REALLY believes his > "infinite recursive behaviour" test is sound, for whatever reason. I > mean that his intuition that it is sound is AS STRONG OR STRONGER than > his recent understanding that a machine which runs and transitions into > a halt state is a halting computation. > > So he has an example where both > (a) the computation P(P) undeniably reaches a halt state (so is halting) > (b) his test in H(P,P) matches the computation when it runs!!!!!!! so it > is UNDENIABLY "exhibiting infinite recursion" (WTM) > > Both principles are equally believed by PO, so both conclusions MUST be > correct! A "paradox"!!! P(P) halts, and yet it exhibits infinite > recursion and so "cannot halt", even though it does. What to do?! > > For 99.99999% of people, there would be no dilemma here. Presented with > (a), which is /the definition/ of halting as used in HP proofs, and > given that (b) was an intuition for which they had /no proof/ of its > correctness, the conclusion would be: (a) is correct, so the test in (b) > hasn't worked for some reason. It is unsound. > > And 99.3% of those people would be capable of resolving this - they'd > track through the computation in (a), using it to pin down where they > went astray in intuition (b). End of story. > > All his recent posts seem to focus on a mixture of one or two totally > banal claims (along the lines of "a computation which never reaches one > of its halt states is a non-halting computation" (LOL), followed by a > bogus claim like "my trace UNDENIABLY proves that the test in (b) > MATCHED!!!!!! and any software engineer who understands x86 will confirm > this - THEREFORE non-halting behaviour HAS been detected so non-halting > is the right answer." (Well, that's what you said with "halting is what > H does", and I've rephrased it for you in 200 words for no real benefit > hehe.) > > I don't see any more than that going on - an absolute faith in the > correctness of his unsound (b) test, although he must realise he can't > prove it is sound. I guess he really thinks reviewers will accept it as > obvious, and everybody here is just stupid or deliberately lying due to > being "in rebuttal mode". > > Mike. > My impression is that PO doesn't REALLY care about the Halting Problem per se, only what it is used for in other proofs. His REAL conviction it the concept that ALL Truth is Provable, and not just as a form of logic system, but as an absolute truth. He has probably seen too many simple proofs that show that because it can be proved simply that we can't always prove if a given machine halts or not, but it definitely does, so we have an unprovavle truth, so he wants to damage the proof of this enough that he can argue that we can call anything not provable as not really true or false. He doesn't seem capable of forming a real proof, so he just falls back to rhetorical arguments. Not understanding the real nature of proofs, he seem to think that by showing an argument that something HAS to be wrong with the wording of the actual halting problem, it allows him to propose his alternate definition, that somehow no one else has ever thought to do (maybe because this method of argument is unsound). I think he honestly thinks that he has established that because we can't come up with an answer that H can give, that because all Truth is provalble, we MUST be allowed to cha nge the question to something sort of the same that it can answer. I don't think he has anywhere near enough of a basis in real logic theory to be able to understand the implications of what he is saying, remember he PRIDES himself for not being 'book learned' and thus 'brainwashed' into knowing that what he thinks is impossible. He as basically condemended himself into committing all the errors of the pass, and for any of them, he doesn't know enough that he has actually ran into a problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 09:32 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] |
| Message-ID | <dtudnUPpgO0PWmP9nZ2dnUU7-TnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37060 |
On 7/25/2021 7:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 25/07/2021 23:42, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: >> >>> On 25/07/2021 21:28, Mike Terry wrote: >>> Pressed Send too soon. :( >>>> On 25/07/2021 18:40, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:14:20 UTC+1, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I think this is all a bit like Malcolm suggesting that PO is raising >>>>>> "interesting ideas" that might be useful with more study, or that >>>>>> some >>>>>> basic idea of PO's is "really quite clever...". It is NOT. PO has no >>>>>> incling of those possibilities and really no interest in them. He is >>>>>> simply saying things he naively thinks are true, without any logical >>>>>> reasoning going on. No cleverness at all. He is not "performing a >>>>>> magic trick", where he will pull a rabit out of a hat - he genuinely >>>>>> believes he is refuting the Linz proof, no tricks. Pretending >>>>>> otherwise >>>>>> may be being nice to PO, making him feel better, but is ultimately >>>>>> unhelpful IMO. I'd say it seems like "dishonest niceness" to me. (But >>>>>> maybe Malcolm really thinks PO is producing worthwhile results, or >>>>>> is on >>>>>> the path to that, in which case it's just being "actually nice"!) >>>>>> >>>>> I've always been very clear that I haven't yet seen from PO >>>>> anything that >>>>> constitutes a refutation of Linz. However when we have, for >>>>> example, the >>>>> "H is the operating system" ruse, I do tend to say "that's a clever >>>>> cheat" >>>>> rather than "how could you make such a simple and obvious error?". >>>>> Largely because it's a nicer way of conveying essentially the same >>>>> information. >>>>> >>>>> I did say recently that PO had constructed his own paradox. It's >>>>> this. If >>>>> H is simulating halt decider, and is called on H, it creates a >>>>> series of >>>>> nested recursions. If it doesn't detect the situation, it never >>>>> halts. If >>>>> it does detect the situation and terminates the simulations, it halts. >>>>> However if it halts, the nested recursions were not infinite. >>>> Right, that's a bit like something I pointed out to PO last year. Such >>>> an emulation-based (putative) decider may have a number of tests in >>>> its stepping loop. Some may be /sound/, like a properly implemented >>>> tight-loop test, or a test might be unsound in that it incorrectly >>>> decides halting for a non-halting input or vice-versa. The sound tests >>>> might match and make correct decisions when examining particular >>>> inputs, BUT it's sort of weird that the when H examines (P,P), the >>>> /sound/ tests >>>> "mysteriously" never ever match! The only tests that will ever >>>> match are those that are unsound... If there are /only/ sound tests >>>> in the >>>> loop, none of them will match and H(P,P) will never make its >>>> decision and halt! Of course that would disqualify H as a decider. >>>> This applies for PO and his "detecting infinite recursions" test, >>>> however much he believes his test to be sound... I've told him that >>>> a reviewer will >>> >>> ...expect to see a /proof/ of the soundness of any test in his loop, >>> if he's going to expect them to take matching of the test as >>> /evidence/ of halting status. (Of course PO can't deliver such a >>> proof.) >> >> Right. And very well put. But he's abandoned almost all pretence at >> dealing with halting. What makes a sound test has been defined to be >> what H does. This is the "adapted" criterion for halting. Not halting, >> but whatever it is he chooses to put into H. When he says that its >> "impossibly incorrect" (if that's the term, I try to forget such things) >> this is what he means. > > Perhaps the root problem is that PO REALLY REALLY REALLY believes his > "infinite recursive behaviour" test is sound, for whatever reason. I > mean that his intuition that it is sound is AS STRONG OR STRONGER than > his recent understanding that a machine which runs and transitions into > a halt state is a halting computation. > > So he has an example where both > (a) the computation P(P) undeniably reaches a halt state (so is halting) > (b) his test in H(P,P) matches the computation when it runs!!!!!!! so it > is UNDENIABLY "exhibiting infinite recursion" (WTM) > > Both principles are equally believed by PO, so both conclusions MUST be > correct! A "paradox"!!! P(P) halts, and yet it exhibits infinite > recursion and so "cannot halt", even though it does. What to do?! > You have the paradox incorrectly. While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving that this input never halts. Anyone bothering to carefully examine these things must necessarily conclude that the pure simulation of the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state. Anyone not bothering to carefully examine these things is a liar and a cheat. When H recognizes this infinite behavior pattern and stops simulating its input, this input still never reaches its final state, thus never halts. Many thanks to André G. Isaak for pointing out the proper and best definition of halting we no longer have the ambiguity between halting (reaching its final state) and stopping running (simulation aborted). > For 99.99999% of people, there would be no dilemma here. Presented with > (a), which is /the definition/ of halting as used in HP proofs, and > given that (b) was an intuition for which they had /no proof/ of its > correctness, the conclusion would be: (a) is correct, so the test in (b) > hasn't worked for some reason. It is unsound. > > And 99.3% of those people would be capable of resolving this - they'd > track through the computation in (a), using it to pin down where they > went astray in intuition (b). End of story. > > All his recent posts seem to focus on a mixture of one or two totally > banal claims (along the lines of "a computation which never reaches one > of its halt states is a non-halting computation" (LOL), followed by a > bogus claim like "my trace UNDENIABLY proves that the test in (b) > MATCHED!!!!!! and any software engineer who understands x86 will confirm > this - THEREFORE non-halting behaviour HAS been detected so non-halting > is the right answer." (Well, that's what you said with "halting is what > H does", and I've rephrased it for you in 200 words for no real benefit > hehe.) > > I don't see any more than that going on - an absolute faith in the > correctness of his unsound (b) test, although he must realise he can't > prove it is sound. I guess he really thinks reviewers will accept it as > obvious, and everybody here is just stupid or deliberately lying due to > being "in rebuttal mode". > > Mike. > -- 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 | 2021-07-26 07:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] |
| Message-ID | <i3ALI.75944$VU3.69298@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #37077 |
On 7/26/21 7:32 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/25/2021 7:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> On 25/07/2021 23:42, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 25/07/2021 21:28, Mike Terry wrote: >>>> Pressed Send too soon. :( >>>>> On 25/07/2021 18:40, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>>> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:14:20 UTC+1, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I think this is all a bit like Malcolm suggesting that PO is raising >>>>>>> "interesting ideas" that might be useful with more study, or that >>>>>>> some >>>>>>> basic idea of PO's is "really quite clever...". It is NOT. PO has no >>>>>>> incling of those possibilities and really no interest in them. He is >>>>>>> simply saying things he naively thinks are true, without any logical >>>>>>> reasoning going on. No cleverness at all. He is not "performing a >>>>>>> magic trick", where he will pull a rabit out of a hat - he genuinely >>>>>>> believes he is refuting the Linz proof, no tricks. Pretending >>>>>>> otherwise >>>>>>> may be being nice to PO, making him feel better, but is ultimately >>>>>>> unhelpful IMO. I'd say it seems like "dishonest niceness" to me. >>>>>>> (But >>>>>>> maybe Malcolm really thinks PO is producing worthwhile results, >>>>>>> or is on >>>>>>> the path to that, in which case it's just being "actually nice"!) >>>>>>> >>>>>> I've always been very clear that I haven't yet seen from PO >>>>>> anything that >>>>>> constitutes a refutation of Linz. However when we have, for >>>>>> example, the >>>>>> "H is the operating system" ruse, I do tend to say "that's a >>>>>> clever cheat" >>>>>> rather than "how could you make such a simple and obvious error?". >>>>>> Largely because it's a nicer way of conveying essentially the same >>>>>> information. >>>>>> >>>>>> I did say recently that PO had constructed his own paradox. It's >>>>>> this. If >>>>>> H is simulating halt decider, and is called on H, it creates a >>>>>> series of >>>>>> nested recursions. If it doesn't detect the situation, it never >>>>>> halts. If >>>>>> it does detect the situation and terminates the simulations, it >>>>>> halts. >>>>>> However if it halts, the nested recursions were not infinite. >>>>> Right, that's a bit like something I pointed out to PO last year. >>>>> Such >>>>> an emulation-based (putative) decider may have a number of tests in >>>>> its stepping loop. Some may be /sound/, like a properly implemented >>>>> tight-loop test, or a test might be unsound in that it incorrectly >>>>> decides halting for a non-halting input or vice-versa. The sound >>>>> tests >>>>> might match and make correct decisions when examining particular >>>>> inputs, BUT it's sort of weird that the when H examines (P,P), the >>>>> /sound/ tests >>>>> "mysteriously" never ever match! The only tests that will ever >>>>> match are those that are unsound... If there are /only/ sound >>>>> tests in the >>>>> loop, none of them will match and H(P,P) will never make its >>>>> decision and halt! Of course that would disqualify H as a decider. >>>>> This applies for PO and his "detecting infinite recursions" test, >>>>> however much he believes his test to be sound... I've told him >>>>> that a reviewer will >>>> >>>> ...expect to see a /proof/ of the soundness of any test in his loop, >>>> if he's going to expect them to take matching of the test as >>>> /evidence/ of halting status. (Of course PO can't deliver such a >>>> proof.) >>> >>> Right. And very well put. But he's abandoned almost all pretence at >>> dealing with halting. What makes a sound test has been defined to be >>> what H does. This is the "adapted" criterion for halting. Not halting, >>> but whatever it is he chooses to put into H. When he says that its >>> "impossibly incorrect" (if that's the term, I try to forget such things) >>> this is what he means. >> >> Perhaps the root problem is that PO REALLY REALLY REALLY believes his >> "infinite recursive behaviour" test is sound, for whatever reason. I >> mean that his intuition that it is sound is AS STRONG OR STRONGER than >> his recent understanding that a machine which runs and transitions >> into a halt state is a halting computation. >> >> So he has an example where both >> (a) the computation P(P) undeniably reaches a halt state (so is halting) >> (b) his test in H(P,P) matches the computation when it runs!!!!!!! so it >> is UNDENIABLY "exhibiting infinite recursion" (WTM) >> >> Both principles are equally believed by PO, so both conclusions MUST >> be correct! A "paradox"!!! P(P) halts, and yet it exhibits infinite >> recursion and so "cannot halt", even though it does. What to do?! >> > > You have the paradox incorrectly. While the input to H(P,P) is simulated > in pure simulation mode it cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus > conclusively proving that this input never halts. > > Anyone bothering to carefully examine these things must necessarily > conclude that the pure simulation of the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly > reach its final state. Anyone not bothering to carefully examine these > things is a liar and a cheat. > > When H recognizes this infinite behavior pattern and stops simulating > its input, this input still never reaches its final state, thus never > halts. > > Many thanks to André G. Isaak for pointing out the proper and best > definition of halting we no longer have the ambiguity between halting > (reaching its final state) and stopping running (simulation aborted). The problem is you use wrong logic to look at this. Halting is that the ACTAUL MACHINE halts. And P(P) Halts, as you agree. It doesn't matter that H(P,P) doesn't reach this halting state, as all that shows is that H terminates its simulation too soon. What you proof ACTUALLY shows is that there is no version of H that has the ability to simulate its own version of H^ to a Halting Conclusion. If there was, then that would be a counter example for Linz, as if H could simulate its H^ to the halting state, it could correctly answer Halting. As it is, it just shows that we have two classes of H that get wrong answers. There is the class Hn that doesn't abort the simulation, and this class gets the problem H(P,P) wrong by not answering. There is the other class Ha that does abort the simulation and returns the decision that Pa is non-Halting, and then that same Pa takes that answer and Halts, showing that Ha is wrong. You logic is that since no H can prove that its input represents a Halting Machine, then all P built from these can be a Halting Computation which is false. This actually shows that your precious All Truth is Provable is actualy a Lie. H sees a pattern that exactly matches the pattern of the FINITE computation that we get from running P(P), so that pattern CAN'T be a definitively non-halting pattern. You claim this based on that UNSOUND logic that you assume that H will not abort its simulation, and thus the claim is NOT proven. You ignore that P (really should be called H^) changes when you alter H so arguments based on varying H so the behavior of a number of different Ps. All you have shown is that Ha can correctly decider that Ha(Pn,Pn) is correct in calling it non-halting, but the proof you want to apply it to need for you to show that Hx(Px,Px) gets the right answer, not the right answer to a DIFFERENT machine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 09:57 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] |
| Message-ID | <sdmm0d$1n1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37077 |
On 2021-07-26 08:32, olcott wrote: > You have the paradox incorrectly. While the input to H(P,P) is simulated > in pure simulation mode it cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus > conclusively proving that this input never halts. But The halting problem isn't concerned with the input to H(P, P), which is simply a representation. It's concerned with the *actual* computation which that input represents. That would be P(P) run independently, and, like any other computation, there is exactly one correct answer to the question 'does it halt'? The input to H isn't a computation; it's just data on the tape. So it is meaningless to ask whether the input to H halts. What happens inside some simulation in some 'mode' isn't the question which the halting problem asks. > Anyone bothering to carefully examine these things must necessarily > conclude that the pure simulation of the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly > reach its final state. Anyone not bothering to carefully examine these > things is a liar and a cheat. Since a pure simulation of a computation must do *exactly* what the actual computation does, if P(P) halts and your simulation does not, then it is *not* a pure simulation. > When H recognizes this infinite behavior pattern and stops simulating > its input, this input still never reaches its final state, thus never > halts. > > Many thanks to André G. Isaak for pointing out the proper and best > definition of halting we no longer have the ambiguity between halting > (reaching its final state) and stopping running (simulation aborted). The fact that you keep acknowledging me for this is a good illustration of the fundamental problem here. I never said anything insightful or novel. The definition I gave was exactly the same one you should have gotten from reading Linz or Sipser or any other introductory text on the subject. The fact that you are still requiring clarification on something as basic as the definition of 'halting' after however many years of working on your 'proof' clearly demonstrates that you simply lack the background to make any claims at all about this problem. Now perhaps you should refocus your attention from your 'proof' to actually learning the subject which you claim to be talking about. Learn what it means to halt. Learn what a computation is (hint: your P is definitely *not* a computation). Learn what a proof is (hint: a trace does not even remotely qualify as a proof of anything). Then come back and review all the work you have done once you've actually learned the subject matter. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-27 02:17 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] |
| Message-ID | <xbednQcGH_k2w2L9nZ2dnUU78IHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #37087 |
On 26/07/2021 16:57, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-07-26 08:32, olcott wrote: > >> You have the paradox incorrectly. While the input to H(P,P) is >> simulated in pure simulation mode it cannot possibly ever reach a >> final state thus conclusively proving that this input never halts. > > But The halting problem isn't concerned with the input to H(P, P), which > is simply a representation. It's concerned with the *actual* computation > which that input represents. That would be P(P) run independently, and, > like any other computation, there is exactly one correct answer to the > question 'does it halt'? > > The input to H isn't a computation; it's just data on the tape. So it is > meaningless to ask whether the input to H halts. What happens inside > some simulation in some 'mode' isn't the question which the halting > problem asks. > >> Anyone bothering to carefully examine these things must necessarily >> conclude that the pure simulation of the input to H(P,P) cannot >> possibly reach its final state. Anyone not bothering to carefully >> examine these things is a liar and a cheat. > > Since a pure simulation of a computation must do *exactly* what the > actual computation does, if P(P) halts and your simulation does not, > then it is *not* a pure simulation. > >> When H recognizes this infinite behavior pattern and stops simulating >> its input, this input still never reaches its final state, thus never >> halts. >> >> Many thanks to André G. Isaak for pointing out the proper and best >> definition of halting we no longer have the ambiguity between halting >> (reaching its final state) and stopping running (simulation aborted). > > The fact that you keep acknowledging me for this is a good illustration > of the fundamental problem here. I never said anything insightful or > novel. The definition I gave was exactly the same one you should have > gotten from reading Linz or Sipser or any other introductory text on the > subject. > > The fact that you are still requiring clarification on something as > basic as the definition of 'halting' after however many years of working > on your 'proof' clearly demonstrates that you simply lack the background > to make any claims at all about this problem. > > Now perhaps you should refocus your attention from your 'proof' to > actually learning the subject which you claim to be talking about. Learn > what it means to halt. Learn what a computation is (hint: your P is > definitely *not* a computation). Learn what a proof is (hint: a trace > does not even remotely qualify as a proof of anything). Then come back > and review all the work you have done once you've actually learned the > subject matter. Sensible advice, but... if PO were /capable/ of learning such topics, he would have done so many years ago. I'm sure he would have made efforts in the past (i.e. in his younger life) to take this much easier route, but I imagine each time he just became baffled by all those symbols, and abstract ideas like TM, halting, truth, proof, set, function, and so on. He doesn't do "abstract" because he /can't/ - his brain just doesn't work that way. That's why he must denigrate others with the ability to understand basic concepts like this, as "learned by rote" people. If he acknowledged that every-day students had basic abilities and understandings that he simply lacked, he'd be perilously close to having to admit to himself that he's not the Unacknowledged Genius of his delusions - his whole world view would come under threat. So he comes up with a way to dismiss such abilities as "not important" (or better, as actively bad in some way). Still, his delusions are harmless enough, and he clearly gets by day to day, so nothing really /needs/ to be done here... (and I get for some people arguing with him is fun!) BTW, I think your explanations for PO are about as clear as it will ever be possible to achieve! Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 20:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] |
| Message-ID | <OuGdnaFmLrSh-WL9nZ2dnUU7-IPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37114 |
On 7/26/2021 8:17 PM, Mike Terry wrote: > On 26/07/2021 16:57, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2021-07-26 08:32, olcott wrote: >> >>> You have the paradox incorrectly. While the input to H(P,P) is >>> simulated in pure simulation mode it cannot possibly ever reach a >>> final state thus conclusively proving that this input never halts. >> >> But The halting problem isn't concerned with the input to H(P, P), >> which is simply a representation. It's concerned with the *actual* >> computation which that input represents. That would be P(P) run >> independently, and, like any other computation, there is exactly one >> correct answer to the question 'does it halt'? >> >> The input to H isn't a computation; it's just data on the tape. So it >> is meaningless to ask whether the input to H halts. What happens >> inside some simulation in some 'mode' isn't the question which the >> halting problem asks. >> >>> Anyone bothering to carefully examine these things must necessarily >>> conclude that the pure simulation of the input to H(P,P) cannot >>> possibly reach its final state. Anyone not bothering to carefully >>> examine these things is a liar and a cheat. >> >> Since a pure simulation of a computation must do *exactly* what the >> actual computation does, if P(P) halts and your simulation does not, >> then it is *not* a pure simulation. >> >>> When H recognizes this infinite behavior pattern and stops simulating >>> its input, this input still never reaches its final state, thus never >>> halts. >>> >>> Many thanks to André G. Isaak for pointing out the proper and best >>> definition of halting we no longer have the ambiguity between halting >>> (reaching its final state) and stopping running (simulation aborted). >> >> The fact that you keep acknowledging me for this is a good >> illustration of the fundamental problem here. I never said anything >> insightful or novel. The definition I gave was exactly the same one >> you should have gotten from reading Linz or Sipser or any other >> introductory text on the subject. >> >> The fact that you are still requiring clarification on something as >> basic as the definition of 'halting' after however many years of >> working on your 'proof' clearly demonstrates that you simply lack the >> background to make any claims at all about this problem. >> >> Now perhaps you should refocus your attention from your 'proof' to >> actually learning the subject which you claim to be talking about. >> Learn what it means to halt. Learn what a computation is (hint: your P >> is definitely *not* a computation). Learn what a proof is (hint: a >> trace does not even remotely qualify as a proof of anything). Then >> come back and review all the work you have done once you've actually >> learned the subject matter. > > Sensible advice, but... if PO were /capable/ of learning such topics, he > would have done so many years ago. I'm sure he would have made efforts > in the past (i.e. in his younger life) to take this much easier route, > but I imagine each time he just became baffled by all those symbols, and > abstract ideas like TM, halting, truth, proof, set, function, and so on. > He doesn't do "abstract" because he /can't/ - his brain just doesn't > work that way. > > That's why he must denigrate others with the ability to understand basic > concepts like this, as "learned by rote" people. It is clearly true that mathematicians never ever carefully examine the philosophical underpinnings of the fundamental nature of truth itself as proven by the fact the no one will evaluate the Tarski proof. http://www.liarparadox.org/Tarski_Proof_275_276.pdf They never realize that these philosophical underpinnings can turn the ultimate basis of Gödel's work on its ear because they never examine these things. If analytical truth and provability mutually define each other then true and unprovable is utterly impossible and incompleteness cannot possibly exist. Sentences that are neither provable nor refutable are simply not truth bearers. > If he acknowledged > that every-day students had basic abilities and understandings that he > simply lacked, he'd be perilously close to having to admit to himself > that he's not the Unacknowledged Genius of his delusions - his whole > world view would come under threat. So he comes up with a way to > dismiss such abilities as "not important" (or better, as actively bad in > some way). > > Still, his delusions are harmless enough, and he clearly gets by day to > day, so nothing really /needs/ to be done here... (and I get for some > people arguing with him is fun!) BTW, I think your explanations for PO > are about as clear as it will ever be possible to achieve! > > > Mike. > -- 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 | 2021-07-26 19:57 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] |
| Message-ID | <OCKLI.27038$sI4.15948@fx40.iad> |
| In reply to | #37118 |
On 7/26/21 6:41 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/26/2021 8:17 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >> On 26/07/2021 16:57, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2021-07-26 08:32, olcott wrote: >>> >>>> You have the paradox incorrectly. While the input to H(P,P) is >>>> simulated in pure simulation mode it cannot possibly ever reach a >>>> final state thus conclusively proving that this input never halts. >>> >>> But The halting problem isn't concerned with the input to H(P, P), >>> which is simply a representation. It's concerned with the *actual* >>> computation which that input represents. That would be P(P) run >>> independently, and, like any other computation, there is exactly one >>> correct answer to the question 'does it halt'? >>> >>> The input to H isn't a computation; it's just data on the tape. So it >>> is meaningless to ask whether the input to H halts. What happens >>> inside some simulation in some 'mode' isn't the question which the >>> halting problem asks. >>> >>>> Anyone bothering to carefully examine these things must necessarily >>>> conclude that the pure simulation of the input to H(P,P) cannot >>>> possibly reach its final state. Anyone not bothering to carefully >>>> examine these things is a liar and a cheat. >>> >>> Since a pure simulation of a computation must do *exactly* what the >>> actual computation does, if P(P) halts and your simulation does not, >>> then it is *not* a pure simulation. >>> >>>> When H recognizes this infinite behavior pattern and stops >>>> simulating its input, this input still never reaches its final >>>> state, thus never halts. >>>> >>>> Many thanks to André G. Isaak for pointing out the proper and best >>>> definition of halting we no longer have the ambiguity between >>>> halting (reaching its final state) and stopping running (simulation >>>> aborted). >>> >>> The fact that you keep acknowledging me for this is a good >>> illustration of the fundamental problem here. I never said anything >>> insightful or novel. The definition I gave was exactly the same one >>> you should have gotten from reading Linz or Sipser or any other >>> introductory text on the subject. >>> >>> The fact that you are still requiring clarification on something as >>> basic as the definition of 'halting' after however many years of >>> working on your 'proof' clearly demonstrates that you simply lack the >>> background to make any claims at all about this problem. >>> >>> Now perhaps you should refocus your attention from your 'proof' to >>> actually learning the subject which you claim to be talking about. >>> Learn what it means to halt. Learn what a computation is (hint: your >>> P is definitely *not* a computation). Learn what a proof is (hint: a >>> trace does not even remotely qualify as a proof of anything). Then >>> come back and review all the work you have done once you've actually >>> learned the subject matter. >> >> Sensible advice, but... if PO were /capable/ of learning such topics, >> he would have done so many years ago. I'm sure he would have made >> efforts in the past (i.e. in his younger life) to take this much >> easier route, but I imagine each time he just became baffled by all >> those symbols, and abstract ideas like TM, halting, truth, proof, set, >> function, and so on. He doesn't do "abstract" because he /can't/ - >> his brain just doesn't work that way. >> >> That's why he must denigrate others with the ability to understand >> basic concepts like this, as "learned by rote" people. > > It is clearly true that mathematicians never ever carefully examine the > philosophical underpinnings of the fundamental nature of truth itself as > proven by the fact the no one will evaluate the Tarski proof. > http://www.liarparadox.org/Tarski_Proof_275_276.pdf Wrong, that arguement doesn't seem to handle the question that we have here. For the Halting Problem, and many Mathematical concepts, we have something that we KNOW must be either True or False, but we don't (at least at this time know which). The concept of Undecideablity is that it is possible that this statement X might be True, but No proof can exists to prove that, or X might be False, and likewise not proof can prove that. Thus, X has a Truth value, but there is no way to prove what it is. For the Halting Problem, this relates to the fact that the can exist a Machine P and an input I that we can not know if it will Halt or Not, that no Computation can answer the question to positively prove that P(I) is or is not a Halting Machine. The Linz proof, that for a given H there is a machine that it can not get right, is a step to towards that larger statement. > > They never realize that these philosophical underpinnings can turn the > ultimate basis of Gödel's work on its ear because they never examine > these things. The issue is that the Logic of Truth is Provable can't handle the field of Mathematics and stay consistent. Godel's prove basically says that either you need to reject that the basic properties of Mathematic 'exist' or you need to accept that some statements can not be provable. > > If analytical truth and provability mutually define each other then true > and unprovable is utterly impossible and incompleteness cannot possibly > exist. Sentences that are neither provable nor refutable are simply not > truth bearers. But it turns out that Logic has SHOWN that the equating of analytical truth and provability limits the logical operations you can do in your logical system or you will get inconsistent results. I think you don't understand this restriction. In particular, the operations used to define the Mathematics of the Natural Numbers is enough to break any system that tries to hold to Truth is Provable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 09:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] |
| Message-ID | <dtudnULpgO1VVWP9nZ2dnUU7-TmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37057 |
On 7/25/2021 5:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: > >> On 25/07/2021 21:28, Mike Terry wrote: >> Pressed Send too soon. :( >>> On 25/07/2021 18:40, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:14:20 UTC+1, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I think this is all a bit like Malcolm suggesting that PO is raising >>>>> "interesting ideas" that might be useful with more study, or that some >>>>> basic idea of PO's is "really quite clever...". It is NOT. PO has no >>>>> incling of those possibilities and really no interest in them. He is >>>>> simply saying things he naively thinks are true, without any logical >>>>> reasoning going on. No cleverness at all. He is not "performing a >>>>> magic trick", where he will pull a rabit out of a hat - he genuinely >>>>> believes he is refuting the Linz proof, no tricks. Pretending otherwise >>>>> may be being nice to PO, making him feel better, but is ultimately >>>>> unhelpful IMO. I'd say it seems like "dishonest niceness" to me. (But >>>>> maybe Malcolm really thinks PO is producing worthwhile results, or is on >>>>> the path to that, in which case it's just being "actually nice"!) >>>>> >>>> I've always been very clear that I haven't yet seen from PO anything that >>>> constitutes a refutation of Linz. However when we have, for example, the >>>> "H is the operating system" ruse, I do tend to say "that's a clever cheat" >>>> rather than "how could you make such a simple and obvious error?". >>>> Largely because it's a nicer way of conveying essentially the same >>>> information. >>>> >>>> I did say recently that PO had constructed his own paradox. It's this. If >>>> H is simulating halt decider, and is called on H, it creates a series of >>>> nested recursions. If it doesn't detect the situation, it never halts. If >>>> it does detect the situation and terminates the simulations, it halts. >>>> However if it halts, the nested recursions were not infinite. >>> Right, that's a bit like something I pointed out to PO last year. Such >>> an emulation-based (putative) decider may have a number of tests in its stepping loop. Some may be /sound/, like a properly implemented >>> tight-loop test, or a test might be unsound in that it incorrectly decides halting for a non-halting input or vice-versa. The sound tests >>> might match and make correct decisions when examining particular inputs, BUT it's sort of weird that the when H examines (P,P), the /sound/ tests >>> "mysteriously" never ever match! The only tests that will ever match are those that are unsound... If there are /only/ sound tests in the >>> loop, none of them will match and H(P,P) will never make its decision and halt! Of course that would disqualify H as a decider. >>> This applies for PO and his "detecting infinite recursions" test, >>> however much he believes his test to be sound... I've told him that a reviewer will >> >> ...expect to see a /proof/ of the soundness of any test in his loop, >> if he's going to expect them to take matching of the test as >> /evidence/ of halting status. (Of course PO can't deliver such a >> proof.) > > Right. And very well put. But he's abandoned almost all pretence at > dealing with halting. What makes a sound test has been defined to be > what H does. This is the "adapted" criterion for halting. Not halting, > but whatever it is he chooses to put into H. When he says that its > "impossibly incorrect" (if that's the term, I try to forget such things) > this is what he means. > While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving that this input never halts. Anyone bothering to carefully examine these things must necessarily conclude that the pure simulation of the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state. Anyone not bothering to carefully examine these things is a liar and a cheat. When H recognizes this infinite behavior pattern and stops simulating its input, this input still never reaches its final state, thus never halts. Many thanks to André G. Isaak for pointing out the proper and best definition of halting we no longer have the ambiguity between halting (reaching its final state) and stopping running (simulation aborted). -- 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 | 2021-07-26 08:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] |
| Message-ID | <K8ALI.26691$7H7.22317@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #37079 |
On 7/26/21 7:38 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/25/2021 5:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: >> >>> On 25/07/2021 21:28, Mike Terry wrote: >>> Pressed Send too soon. :( >>>> On 25/07/2021 18:40, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:14:20 UTC+1, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I think this is all a bit like Malcolm suggesting that PO is raising >>>>>> "interesting ideas" that might be useful with more study, or that >>>>>> some >>>>>> basic idea of PO's is "really quite clever...". It is NOT. PO has no >>>>>> incling of those possibilities and really no interest in them. He is >>>>>> simply saying things he naively thinks are true, without any logical >>>>>> reasoning going on. No cleverness at all. He is not "performing a >>>>>> magic trick", where he will pull a rabit out of a hat - he genuinely >>>>>> believes he is refuting the Linz proof, no tricks. Pretending >>>>>> otherwise >>>>>> may be being nice to PO, making him feel better, but is ultimately >>>>>> unhelpful IMO. I'd say it seems like "dishonest niceness" to me. (But >>>>>> maybe Malcolm really thinks PO is producing worthwhile results, or >>>>>> is on >>>>>> the path to that, in which case it's just being "actually nice"!) >>>>>> >>>>> I've always been very clear that I haven't yet seen from PO >>>>> anything that >>>>> constitutes a refutation of Linz. However when we have, for >>>>> example, the >>>>> "H is the operating system" ruse, I do tend to say "that's a clever >>>>> cheat" >>>>> rather than "how could you make such a simple and obvious error?". >>>>> Largely because it's a nicer way of conveying essentially the same >>>>> information. >>>>> >>>>> I did say recently that PO had constructed his own paradox. It's >>>>> this. If >>>>> H is simulating halt decider, and is called on H, it creates a >>>>> series of >>>>> nested recursions. If it doesn't detect the situation, it never >>>>> halts. If >>>>> it does detect the situation and terminates the simulations, it halts. >>>>> However if it halts, the nested recursions were not infinite. >>>> Right, that's a bit like something I pointed out to PO last year. Such >>>> an emulation-based (putative) decider may have a number of tests in >>>> its stepping loop. Some may be /sound/, like a properly implemented >>>> tight-loop test, or a test might be unsound in that it incorrectly >>>> decides halting for a non-halting input or vice-versa. The sound tests >>>> might match and make correct decisions when examining particular >>>> inputs, BUT it's sort of weird that the when H examines (P,P), the >>>> /sound/ tests >>>> "mysteriously" never ever match! The only tests that will ever >>>> match are those that are unsound... If there are /only/ sound tests >>>> in the >>>> loop, none of them will match and H(P,P) will never make its >>>> decision and halt! Of course that would disqualify H as a decider. >>>> This applies for PO and his "detecting infinite recursions" test, >>>> however much he believes his test to be sound... I've told him that >>>> a reviewer will >>> >>> ...expect to see a /proof/ of the soundness of any test in his loop, >>> if he's going to expect them to take matching of the test as >>> /evidence/ of halting status. (Of course PO can't deliver such a >>> proof.) >> >> Right. And very well put. But he's abandoned almost all pretence at >> dealing with halting. What makes a sound test has been defined to be >> what H does. This is the "adapted" criterion for halting. Not halting, >> but whatever it is he chooses to put into H. When he says that its >> "impossibly incorrect" (if that's the term, I try to forget such things) >> this is what he means. >> > > While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it cannot > possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving that this > input never halts. WRONG. UTM(P,P) will Halt. Thus we see that H just aborts its simulation to soon and that the issue is that no H can be designed to simulate long enough as each change in H to lengthen the time it runs also changes P so that H needs to simulater for Even longer. > > Anyone bothering to carefully examine these things must necessarily > conclude that the pure simulation of the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly > reach its final state. Anyone not bothering to carefully examine these > things is a liar and a cheat. As shown above, since UTM(P,P) Halts, this doesn't prove what you think it proves. You just proved that no H can logically prove that its H^ is a halting computation. That doesn't mean that no H^ is a halting computation, as not all Truth is Provable. > > When H recognizes this infinite behavior pattern and stops simulating > its input, this input still never reaches its final state, thus never > halts. It identify a pattern that it THINKS is an infinite behavior, but it exactly matches the pattern of P(P) which IS a Halting computation (at least for any P built on an H that does abort its simulation and returns non-halting). > > Many thanks to André G. Isaak for pointing out the proper and best > definition of halting we no longer have the ambiguity between halting > (reaching its final state) and stopping running (simulation aborted). > > Right, halting is that the ACTUAL MACHINE reaches its halting state in a finite number of steps. That a simulation doesn't reach this state in some smaller finite number of steps simulated doesn't actually prove anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web