Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #49506 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-05-02 16:47 +0100 |
| Last post | 2022-05-06 11:54 +0300 |
| Articles | 15 on this page of 215 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-02 16:47 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 11:18 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-02 17:39 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 15:28 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-03 00:10 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 21:07 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-04 15:16 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 14:27 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-05 01:59 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 20:19 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-05 03:28 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 21:55 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 19:59 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 22:09 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-04 21:17 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 22:35 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-04 21:38 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 22:42 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 20:50 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 22:58 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 21:07 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 23:48 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 07:51 -0400
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 07:50 -0400
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 04:57 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 13:01 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 11:03 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 13:45 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 11:50 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 16:43 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 20:20 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 22:38 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 20:43 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 22:54 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 21:12 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 23:49 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 04:54 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 11:12 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 09:20 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 13:32 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 07:56 -0400
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 07:54 -0400
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 05:27 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-05 14:14 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 16:53 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 15:11 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 17:31 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 22:43 -0400
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 12:17 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 10:28 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 13:39 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 11:52 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 16:47 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 15:06 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 17:28 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 15:42 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 20:06 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 18:17 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 20:36 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 18:59 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 21:08 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 19:18 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 21:33 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 19:50 -0700
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 01:35 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-06 07:52 -0400
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-05 20:51 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:07 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 13:14 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:29 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 07:46 -0400
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-05 14:29 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 17:12 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-05-06 02:58 +0200
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 20:01 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-05-06 03:34 +0200
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-06 03:35 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 21:57 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 22:29 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-06 12:36 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 11:33 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 02:57 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 21:22 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-08 00:01 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-07 18:45 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-08 00:59 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-07 12:31 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 23:48 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-05 23:01 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 00:12 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 07:36 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 10:32 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 09:43 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 11:45 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 11:01 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 13:03 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 12:18 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 13:50 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 13:05 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:19 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 13:23 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:34 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-06 13:37 -0600
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:48 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 00:47 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 18:59 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-07 03:04 +0100
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 21:26 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 23:03 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ Simple TM Interpreter ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 00:55 -0500
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 22:51 -0400
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-06 12:42 +0300
Re: H(P,P) == false is correct [ verified facts ] olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:09 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-03 12:36 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 04:08 -0700
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 09:33 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 09:41 -0700
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 11:57 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-03 12:53 -0600
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2022-05-03 13:02 -0600
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-03 19:59 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 14:05 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 14:51 -0700
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2022-05-03 16:06 -0600
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 17:15 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 17:11 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-04 12:04 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2022-05-04 14:04 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-04 14:48 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-05-04 00:21 +0200
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 17:40 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-05-04 00:46 +0200
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 17:49 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-05-04 01:05 +0200
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 18:48 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-04 12:15 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 11:24 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-04 18:51 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 09:38 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-03 20:17 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 13:06 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-04 10:19 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 12:57 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-04 18:53 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-05 12:37 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 12:52 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-06 12:23 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-06 14:14 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-07 11:42 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-07 11:16 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-08 11:21 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 10:41 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-09 19:45 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 12:11 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 19:21 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-10 10:34 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 13:13 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-03 21:58 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 18:32 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-02 23:38 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 18:46 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-02 23:47 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 19:16 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-03 00:30 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 20:40 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-03 20:06 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 14:17 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-05-04 00:23 +0200
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-04 12:24 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-03 21:54 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-04 17:40 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 12:46 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-04 19:23 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-02 19:35 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-02 20:48 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) wij wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 05:12 -0700
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 09:31 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 07:47 -0700
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 10:19 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 08:36 -0700
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 11:39 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 14:49 -0700
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 17:08 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Dennis Bush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 15:21 -0700
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 17:32 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-03 21:47 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-03 12:31 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 09:42 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-03 20:27 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-03 13:13 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-03 21:38 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-09 19:58 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 12:16 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-09 19:30 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) wij <wyniijj2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-10 08:40 -0700
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-03 21:41 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-03 19:26 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-04 10:31 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-04 13:09 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-08 11:09 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 10:39 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-09 19:48 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2022-05-09 12:12 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-05 12:19 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2022-05-05 17:54 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 22:56 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-06 11:50 +0300
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 12:46 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-05 21:00 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 17:16 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-06 02:21 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> - 2022-05-05 20:37 -0500
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-05-06 03:46 +0100
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2022-05-05 18:41 -0400
Re: On recursion and infinite recursion (reprise) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2022-05-06 11:54 +0300
Page 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-09 10:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <Rv-dndVesPYJqOT_nZ2dnUU7_81g4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50013 |
On 5/8/2022 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2022-05-04 18:09:44 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 5/4/2022 2:31 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2022-05-03 18:26:21 +0000, Mr Flibble said: >>> >>>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 12:31:44 +0300 >>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 2022-05-02 15:47:32 +0000, Mr Flibble said: >>>>> >>>>>> Not all infinitely recursive definitions are invalid however >>>>>> infinitely recursive definitions that arise out of a category error >>>>>> (as is the case with the halting problem) are invalid. >>>>> >>>>> An infinite recursion cannot arise out of a category error as the >>>>> recursion stops at the category error. >>>> >>>> Which is kind of my point: the category error is what makes the >>>> infinite recursion invalid thus rendering the halting problem >>>> definition itself invalid and any proofs predicated on it. >>> >>> Category error does not make the infinite recursion invalid, just >>> irrelevant. The sentence containing the category error wourld be >>> invalid even whithout the infinite recursion. >>> >> >> Infinite recursion prevents an expression of language from being a >> logic sentence. > > Irrelevant if the expression is invalid for some more obvious reason > such as category error. > > Mikko > That <is> the category error. Is this sentence true: "What time is it?" It is a category error only delclarative sentences can be true. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-09 19:48 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t5bgl1$nom$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #50075 |
On 2022-05-09 15:39:00 +0000, olcott said: > On 5/8/2022 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2022-05-04 18:09:44 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 5/4/2022 2:31 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2022-05-03 18:26:21 +0000, Mr Flibble said: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 12:31:44 +0300 >>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 2022-05-02 15:47:32 +0000, Mr Flibble said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Not all infinitely recursive definitions are invalid however >>>>>>> infinitely recursive definitions that arise out of a category error >>>>>>> (as is the case with the halting problem) are invalid. >>>>>> >>>>>> An infinite recursion cannot arise out of a category error as the >>>>>> recursion stops at the category error. >>>>> >>>>> Which is kind of my point: the category error is what makes the >>>>> infinite recursion invalid thus rendering the halting problem >>>>> definition itself invalid and any proofs predicated on it. >>>> >>>> Category error does not make the infinite recursion invalid, just >>>> irrelevant. The sentence containing the category error wourld be >>>> invalid even whithout the infinite recursion. >>>> >>> >>> Infinite recursion prevents an expression of language from being a >>> logic sentence. >> >> Irrelevant if the expression is invalid for some more obvious reason >> such as category error. >> >> Mikko >> > > That <is> the category error. > Is this sentence true: "What time is it?" > It is a category error only delclarative sentences can be true. Irrelevant as Mr Flibble did not discuss questions. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-09 12:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kdadnRsGeafn1uT_nZ2dnUU7_8xh4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #50094 |
On 5/9/2022 11:48 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2022-05-09 15:39:00 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 5/8/2022 3:09 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2022-05-04 18:09:44 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 5/4/2022 2:31 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2022-05-03 18:26:21 +0000, Mr Flibble said: >>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, 3 May 2022 12:31:44 +0300 >>>>>> Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2022-05-02 15:47:32 +0000, Mr Flibble said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not all infinitely recursive definitions are invalid however >>>>>>>> infinitely recursive definitions that arise out of a category error >>>>>>>> (as is the case with the halting problem) are invalid. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> An infinite recursion cannot arise out of a category error as the >>>>>>> recursion stops at the category error. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which is kind of my point: the category error is what makes the >>>>>> infinite recursion invalid thus rendering the halting problem >>>>>> definition itself invalid and any proofs predicated on it. >>>>> >>>>> Category error does not make the infinite recursion invalid, just >>>>> irrelevant. The sentence containing the category error wourld be >>>>> invalid even whithout the infinite recursion. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Infinite recursion prevents an expression of language from being a >>>> logic sentence. >>> >>> Irrelevant if the expression is invalid for some more obvious reason >>> such as category error. >>> >>> Mikko >>> >> >> That <is> the category error. >> Is this sentence true: "What time is it?" >> It is a category error only delclarative sentences can be true. > > Irrelevant as Mr Flibble did not discuss questions. > > Mikko > He discussed category error, I provided an example of a category error. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 12:19 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t504rj$kbf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49506 |
On 2022-05-02 15:47:32 +0000, Mr Flibble said: > Not all infinitely recursive definitions are invalid however infinitely > recursive definitions that arise out of a category error (as is the > case with the halting problem) are invalid. > > The halting problem (as currently defined) is invalid due to the > invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that is actually > impossible due to the category error present in its definition and > *not* because of any function call-like recursion; confusion between > these two types of recursion are why Olcott is having difficulty > communicating his ideas with the rest of you shower. > > The categories involved in the category error are the decider and that > which is being decided. Currently extant attempts to conflate the > decider with that which is being decided are infinitely > recursive and thus invalid. There is no category error in the theorem. An infinitely recursive computation is still in the category of computations. Its behaviour is well defined and it either halts in finite time (in which case it isn't actually infinitely recursive) or it does not (either because it is infinitely recursive or because of some other cause). Therefore the claim that there is a category error in the theorem is invalid. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 17:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <20220505175401.00004459@reddwarf.jmc> |
| In reply to | #49710 |
On Thu, 5 May 2022 12:19:47 +0300 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: > On 2022-05-02 15:47:32 +0000, Mr Flibble said: > > > Not all infinitely recursive definitions are invalid however > > infinitely recursive definitions that arise out of a category error > > (as is the case with the halting problem) are invalid. > > > > The halting problem (as currently defined) is invalid due to the > > invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that is actually > > impossible due to the category error present in its definition and > > *not* because of any function call-like recursion; confusion between > > these two types of recursion are why Olcott is having difficulty > > communicating his ideas with the rest of you shower. > > > > The categories involved in the category error are the decider and > > that which is being decided. Currently extant attempts to conflate > > the decider with that which is being decided are infinitely > > recursive and thus invalid. > > There is no category error in the theorem. An infinitely recursive > computation is still in the category of computations. Its behaviour > is well defined and it either halts in finite time (in which case > it isn't actually infinitely recursive) or it does not (either because > it is infinitely recursive or because of some other cause). Therefore > the claim that there is a category error in the theorem is invalid. The category error is in the proof of the theorem existing as an erroneous (invalid) infinite recursion [Wikipedia, 2022] /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 22:56 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <k70dK.2942$arR.2304@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #49732 |
On 5/5/22 12:54 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Thu, 5 May 2022 12:19:47 +0300 > Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> wrote: > >> On 2022-05-02 15:47:32 +0000, Mr Flibble said: >> >>> Not all infinitely recursive definitions are invalid however >>> infinitely recursive definitions that arise out of a category error >>> (as is the case with the halting problem) are invalid. >>> >>> The halting problem (as currently defined) is invalid due to the >>> invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that is actually >>> impossible due to the category error present in its definition and >>> *not* because of any function call-like recursion; confusion between >>> these two types of recursion are why Olcott is having difficulty >>> communicating his ideas with the rest of you shower. >>> >>> The categories involved in the category error are the decider and >>> that which is being decided. Currently extant attempts to conflate >>> the decider with that which is being decided are infinitely >>> recursive and thus invalid. >> >> There is no category error in the theorem. An infinitely recursive >> computation is still in the category of computations. Its behaviour >> is well defined and it either halts in finite time (in which case >> it isn't actually infinitely recursive) or it does not (either because >> it is infinitely recursive or because of some other cause). Therefore >> the claim that there is a category error in the theorem is invalid. > > The category error is in the proof of the theorem existing as an > erroneous (invalid) infinite recursion [Wikipedia, 2022] > > /Flibble > There is nothing "invalid" about the program and input that is used to prove that H is wrong. Given ANY claimed halt decider that you can possible design, it is simple to create the contradictory program, so that program does exist. It is then trivial to look at what answer that decider will give, and show that no matter what answer it gives, it is wrong. If it gets into an infinite recursion, all that proves is that the claim decider was invalid, not the proof.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 11:50 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t52ngi$ak6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49732 |
On 2022-05-05 16:54:01 +0000, Mr Flibble said: > The category error is in the proof of the theorem existing as an > erroneous (invalid) infinite recursion [Wikipedia, 2022] No sentence in the proof of any of the proofs of the theorem that the halting problem is not Turing solvable has been shown to contain a category error. A category error is always contained in a single sentence, so if no sentence contains the error it is not present at all. Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 12:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t512hq$uol$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49710 |
On 5/5/2022 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2022-05-02 15:47:32 +0000, Mr Flibble said: > >> Not all infinitely recursive definitions are invalid however infinitely >> recursive definitions that arise out of a category error (as is the >> case with the halting problem) are invalid. >> >> The halting problem (as currently defined) is invalid due to the >> invalid "impossible program" [Strachey, 1965] that is actually >> impossible due to the category error present in its definition and >> *not* because of any function call-like recursion; confusion between >> these two types of recursion are why Olcott is having difficulty >> communicating his ideas with the rest of you shower. >> >> The categories involved in the category error are the decider and that >> which is being decided. Currently extant attempts to conflate the >> decider with that which is being decided are infinitely >> recursive and thus invalid. > > There is no category error in the theorem. An infinitely recursive > computation is still in the category of computations. Not according to Linz. Linz says that all computations must halt. > Its behaviour > is well defined and it either halts in finite time (in which case > it isn't actually infinitely recursive) or it does not (either because Halting only counts when the input reaches its own final state. An aborted simulation does not count as halting. H(P,P)==false is provably correct in that H does correctly compute the mapping from its input parameters to its own final reject state. > it is infinitely recursive or because of some other cause). Therefore > the claim that there is a category error in the theorem is invalid. > > Mikko > -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 21:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <878rrfoikk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49741 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > On 5/5/2022 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >> There is no category error in the theorem. An infinitely recursive >> computation is still in the category of computations. > > Not according to Linz. Linz says that all computations must halt. That's a gem! I'm keeping that one! -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 17:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t51ibo$t3s$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49758 |
On 5/5/2022 3:00 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 5/5/2022 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote: > >>> There is no category error in the theorem. An infinitely recursive >>> computation is still in the category of computations. >> >> Not according to Linz. Linz says that all computations must halt. > > That's a gem! I'm keeping that one! > He does say that. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 02:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87ilqjmp5f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49779 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > On 5/5/2022 3:00 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/5/2022 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >> >>>> There is no category error in the theorem. An infinitely recursive >>>> computation is still in the category of computations. >>> >>> Not according to Linz. Linz says that all computations must halt. >> >> That's a gem! I'm keeping that one! > > He does say that. <sigh> Something does not become a "category error" because people use terms in different ways. What matters is the category not the name of the category. -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 20:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <t51u5e$9co$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49789 |
On 5/5/2022 8:21 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 5/5/2022 3:00 PM, Ben wrote: >>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 5/5/2022 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> >>>>> There is no category error in the theorem. An infinitely recursive >>>>> computation is still in the category of computations. >>>> >>>> Not according to Linz. Linz says that all computations must halt. >>> >>> That's a gem! I'm keeping that one! >> >> He does say that. > > <sigh> > Something does not become a "category error" because people use terms in > different ways. What matters is the category not the name of the > category. > According to Linz: If a sequence of configurations never halts then it is not a computation. -- Copyright 2022 Pete Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 03:46 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <874k23bcod.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #49793 |
olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > On 5/5/2022 8:21 PM, Ben wrote: >> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 5/5/2022 3:00 PM, Ben wrote: >>>> olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 5/5/2022 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> >>>>>> There is no category error in the theorem. An infinitely recursive >>>>>> computation is still in the category of computations. >>>>> >>>>> Not according to Linz. Linz says that all computations must halt. >>>> >>>> That's a gem! I'm keeping that one! >>> >>> He does say that. >> <sigh> >> Something does not become a "category error" because people use terms in >> different ways. What matters is the category not the name of the >> category. > > According to Linz: > If a sequence of configurations never halts then it is not a > computation. It was funny when it seemed like you were saying this in an attempt to show that Mikko was wrong, but maybe you were just offering it up as a random fact... The term is used differently in different contexts (you even asked me to define it once and you claimed to like my definition). -- Ben. "le génie humain a des limites, quand la bêtise humaine n’en a pas" Alexandre Dumas (fils)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-05 18:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <hoYcK.7679$gc62.606@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #49758 |
On 5/5/22 4:00 PM, Ben wrote: > olcott <polcott2@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 5/5/2022 4:19 AM, Mikko wrote: > >>> There is no category error in the theorem. An infinitely recursive >>> computation is still in the category of computations. >> >> Not according to Linz. Linz says that all computations must halt. > > That's a gem! I'm keeping that one! > There is one version of the definition of a computation that says that if it doesn't halt, it isn't a computation, just a machine running an input. With that definition, the Halting Problem becomes the question of does a given Machine processing a given input perform a Computation, because it Halt, or is it not a Computation. This sort of thing makes it very important to actually specify what you mean by your words, which of course Peter tends to fail to do so, but uses ambiguities like this and using different meanings in different parts to prove incorrect statements. Things like "The Input".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-05-06 11:54 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <t52no3$c39$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #49741 |
On 2022-05-05 17:46:32 +0000, olcott said: >> There is no category error in the theorem. An infinitely recursive >> computation is still in the category of computations. > Not according to Linz. Linz says that all computations must halt. Where does Linz say so? Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11]
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web