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 19 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 27 Next page →
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-12 10:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <uNmdncv5Geup3oj8nZ2dnUU7-QOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37834 |
On 8/12/2021 10:40 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 13:24:46 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >> On 8/12/2021 3:36 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 06:11:30 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>> On 8/11/2021 5:40 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 8/11/2021 6:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>>>> On 8/11/2021 5:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can >>>>>>> help in any way, do let me know. >>>>>> >>>>>> That's not nice. Aren't you afraid that he'll develop carpal tunnel >>>>>> syndrome? That along with all of his other deficiencies will surely do >>>>>> him in. Perhaps we can invent shortcuts a la LaTeX macros and font >>>>>> switches to help him cut down the strain. He wont be insulted and will >>>>>> take to it as a pig to mud. Just think, he'll have yet another >>>>>> notation to misuse and abuse. >>>>> >>>>> Ben finally acknowledged the point that I was making: >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>> >>>>> // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx >>>>> >>>>> My proof requires a whole inference chain that cannot proceed to the >>>>> next point until the current point is accepted as correct. >>>> In addition to carpal tunnel, you are delusional. I get the vague >>>> impression reading the above that you are having a schizoid episode. >>>> There is a complete and total discount between what others say to you >>>> and your replies. I suggest you cut out some of the examples you like >>>> best and show them to your therapist. You do have one, don't you? It may >>>> lead to better, more effective treatment. We are all hoping you get >>>> better but schizoid episodes are hard to suppress. I assume meds have >>>> been prescribed for your condition. Are you taking them? Or are you >>>> refusing medical help just as you refuse to allow Ben to heal your >>>> ignorance. A little trust in your betters will go a long way towards >>>> recovery and a cure. Start now before it's to late. God speed to you. >>>> - >>> YOu might be right, but I think it's just frustration. His execution trace shows >>> what appears to be an infinitely recursive process aborted, and everyone is >>> just ignoring that and focusing on the other reality that his H does not >>> return the result that matches the behaviour of the input when run independently. >>> >>> The attempt to use formal math notation when he doesn't understand it >>> doesn't help. That can create the impression of mental incoherence, but in fact >>> it's not that. >>> >>> Despite a mass of posting, we still don't have a good idea how H works. >> _P() >> [00000d02](01) 55 push ebp >> [00000d03](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp >> [00000d05](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >> [00000d08](01) 50 push eax // push 2nd Param >> [00000d09](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >> [00000d0c](01) 51 push ecx // push 1st Param >> [00000d0d](05) e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H >> [00000d12](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 >> [00000d15](02) 85c0 test eax,eax >> [00000d17](02) 7402 jz 00000d1b >> [00000d19](02) ebfe jmp 00000d19 >> [00000d1b](01) 5d pop ebp >> [00000d1c](01) c3 ret >> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000d1c] >> machine stack stack machine assembly >> address address data code language >> ======== ======== ======== ========= ============= >> ...[00000d0d][00101829][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H >> >> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:d02 >> ...[00000d02][002118f1][002118f5] 55 push ebp >> ...[00000d03][002118f1][002118f5] 8bec mov ebp,esp >> ...[00000d05][002118f1][002118f5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >> ...[00000d08][002118ed][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P >> ...[00000d09][002118ed][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >> ...[00000d0c][002118e9][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P >> ...[00000d0d][002118e5][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H >> >> ...[00000d02][0025c319][0025c31d] 55 push ebp >> ...[00000d03][0025c319][0025c31d] 8bec mov ebp,esp >> ...[00000d05][0025c319][0025c31d] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >> ...[00000d08][0025c315][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P >> ...[00000d09][0025c315][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >> ...[00000d0c][0025c311][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P >> ...[00000d0d][0025c30d][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H >> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped >> If this means that you are telling me that: >> (1) You know the x86 language very well. >> >> (2) Can't begin to understand why P would be stuck in infinitely nested >> simulation while H acts as a pure simulator? >> > OK, so let's start. > There's a line which says "Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine > Address:d02". Is that part of the execution trace, or is it a commented added > by hand? If it is part of the execution trace, why doesn't this line appear > before the second line with the label 0d02? The halt decider automatically writes this when it begins the simulation that its halt analysis is based on. >> >> I would say that you must be a liar. >> > I have a PhD. PhD holder attach a very high value to honesty, in particular > with respect to their subjects. But also more generally. I always draw attention > if I'm given too much change at the pub, for example, not becaue I'm better > than other people, but because I'm a doctor, and a doctor can't be seen to > take money that doesn't belong to him. > So do (1) and (2) apply to you? -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-13 01:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <18641124-bd15-44f9-9244-5fd79ccdceb7n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37835 |
On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 16:50:19 UTC+1, olcott wrote: > On 8/12/2021 10:40 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 13:24:46 UTC+1, olcott wrote: > >> On 8/12/2021 3:36 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 06:11:30 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote: > >>>> On 8/11/2021 5:40 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>>> On 8/11/2021 6:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: > >>>>>> On 8/11/2021 5:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > >>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > >>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > >>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can > >>>>>>> help in any way, do let me know. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That's not nice. Aren't you afraid that he'll develop carpal tunnel > >>>>>> syndrome? That along with all of his other deficiencies will surely do > >>>>>> him in. Perhaps we can invent shortcuts a la LaTeX macros and font > >>>>>> switches to help him cut down the strain. He wont be insulted and will > >>>>>> take to it as a pig to mud. Just think, he'll have yet another > >>>>>> notation to misuse and abuse. > >>>>> > >>>>> Ben finally acknowledged the point that I was making: > >>>>> > >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ > >>>>> if M applied to wM halts, and > >>>>> > >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn > >>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt > >>>>> > >>>>> // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx > >>>>> > >>>>> My proof requires a whole inference chain that cannot proceed to the > >>>>> next point until the current point is accepted as correct. > >>>> In addition to carpal tunnel, you are delusional. I get the vague > >>>> impression reading the above that you are having a schizoid episode. > >>>> There is a complete and total discount between what others say to you > >>>> and your replies. I suggest you cut out some of the examples you like > >>>> best and show them to your therapist. You do have one, don't you? It may > >>>> lead to better, more effective treatment. We are all hoping you get > >>>> better but schizoid episodes are hard to suppress. I assume meds have > >>>> been prescribed for your condition. Are you taking them? Or are you > >>>> refusing medical help just as you refuse to allow Ben to heal your > >>>> ignorance. A little trust in your betters will go a long way towards > >>>> recovery and a cure. Start now before it's to late. God speed to you. > >>>> - > >>> YOu might be right, but I think it's just frustration. His execution trace shows > >>> what appears to be an infinitely recursive process aborted, and everyone is > >>> just ignoring that and focusing on the other reality that his H does not > >>> return the result that matches the behaviour of the input when run independently. > >>> > >>> The attempt to use formal math notation when he doesn't understand it > >>> doesn't help. That can create the impression of mental incoherence, but in fact > >>> it's not that. > >>> > >>> Despite a mass of posting, we still don't have a good idea how H works. > >> _P() > >> [00000d02](01) 55 push ebp > >> [00000d03](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp > >> [00000d05](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > >> [00000d08](01) 50 push eax // push 2nd Param > >> [00000d09](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > >> [00000d0c](01) 51 push ecx // push 1st Param > >> [00000d0d](05) e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H > >> [00000d12](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 > >> [00000d15](02) 85c0 test eax,eax > >> [00000d17](02) 7402 jz 00000d1b > >> [00000d19](02) ebfe jmp 00000d19 > >> [00000d1b](01) 5d pop ebp > >> [00000d1c](01) c3 ret > >> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000d1c] > >> machine stack stack machine assembly > >> address address data code language > >> ======== ======== ======== ========= ============= > >> ...[00000d0d][00101829][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H > >> > >> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:d02 > >> ...[00000d02][002118f1][002118f5] 55 push ebp > >> ...[00000d03][002118f1][002118f5] 8bec mov ebp,esp > >> ...[00000d05][002118f1][002118f5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > >> ...[00000d08][002118ed][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P > >> ...[00000d09][002118ed][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > >> ...[00000d0c][002118e9][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P > >> ...[00000d0d][002118e5][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H > >> > >> ...[00000d02][0025c319][0025c31d] 55 push ebp > >> ...[00000d03][0025c319][0025c31d] 8bec mov ebp,esp > >> ...[00000d05][0025c319][0025c31d] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > >> ...[00000d08][0025c315][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P > >> ...[00000d09][0025c315][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > >> ...[00000d0c][0025c311][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P > >> ...[00000d0d][0025c30d][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H > >> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped > >> If this means that you are telling me that: > >> (1) You know the x86 language very well. > >> > >> (2) Can't begin to understand why P would be stuck in infinitely nested > >> simulation while H acts as a pure simulator? > >> > > OK, so let's start. > > There's a line which says "Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine > > Address:d02". Is that part of the execution trace, or is it a commented added > > by hand? If it is part of the execution trace, why doesn't this line appear > > before the second line with the label 0d02? > The halt decider automatically writes this when it begins the simulation > that its halt analysis is based on. > OK, so why don't we get a second "Begin Local Halt Decider ..." line output? > >> > >> I would say that you must be a liar. > >> > > I have a PhD. PhD holder attach a very high value to honesty, in particular > > with respect to their subjects. But also more generally. I always draw attention > > if I'm given too much change at the pub, for example, not becaue I'm better > > than other people, but because I'm a doctor, and a doctor can't be seen to > > take money that doesn't belong to him. > > > So do (1) and (2) apply to you? > That was a demand for an apology, but you are too focused on your own interests to be sensitive to what other people are trying to communicate to you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-13 08:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <qZadnXWzkYln7ov8nZ2dnUU7-cPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37865 |
On 8/13/2021 3:58 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 16:50:19 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >> On 8/12/2021 10:40 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 13:24:46 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/12/2021 3:36 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 06:11:30 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>>>> On 8/11/2021 5:40 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/11/2021 6:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/11/2021 5:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can >>>>>>>>> help in any way, do let me know. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's not nice. Aren't you afraid that he'll develop carpal tunnel >>>>>>>> syndrome? That along with all of his other deficiencies will surely do >>>>>>>> him in. Perhaps we can invent shortcuts a la LaTeX macros and font >>>>>>>> switches to help him cut down the strain. He wont be insulted and will >>>>>>>> take to it as a pig to mud. Just think, he'll have yet another >>>>>>>> notation to misuse and abuse. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ben finally acknowledged the point that I was making: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx >>>>>>> >>>>>>> My proof requires a whole inference chain that cannot proceed to the >>>>>>> next point until the current point is accepted as correct. >>>>>> In addition to carpal tunnel, you are delusional. I get the vague >>>>>> impression reading the above that you are having a schizoid episode. >>>>>> There is a complete and total discount between what others say to you >>>>>> and your replies. I suggest you cut out some of the examples you like >>>>>> best and show them to your therapist. You do have one, don't you? It may >>>>>> lead to better, more effective treatment. We are all hoping you get >>>>>> better but schizoid episodes are hard to suppress. I assume meds have >>>>>> been prescribed for your condition. Are you taking them? Or are you >>>>>> refusing medical help just as you refuse to allow Ben to heal your >>>>>> ignorance. A little trust in your betters will go a long way towards >>>>>> recovery and a cure. Start now before it's to late. God speed to you. >>>>>> - >>>>> YOu might be right, but I think it's just frustration. His execution trace shows >>>>> what appears to be an infinitely recursive process aborted, and everyone is >>>>> just ignoring that and focusing on the other reality that his H does not >>>>> return the result that matches the behaviour of the input when run independently. >>>>> >>>>> The attempt to use formal math notation when he doesn't understand it >>>>> doesn't help. That can create the impression of mental incoherence, but in fact >>>>> it's not that. >>>>> >>>>> Despite a mass of posting, we still don't have a good idea how H works. >>>> _P() >>>> [00000d02](01) 55 push ebp >>>> [00000d03](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>> [00000d05](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>> [00000d08](01) 50 push eax // push 2nd Param >>>> [00000d09](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>> [00000d0c](01) 51 push ecx // push 1st Param >>>> [00000d0d](05) e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H >>>> [00000d12](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 >>>> [00000d15](02) 85c0 test eax,eax >>>> [00000d17](02) 7402 jz 00000d1b >>>> [00000d19](02) ebfe jmp 00000d19 >>>> [00000d1b](01) 5d pop ebp >>>> [00000d1c](01) c3 ret >>>> Size in bytes:(0027) [00000d1c] >>>> machine stack stack machine assembly >>>> address address data code language >>>> ======== ======== ======== ========= ============= >>>> ...[00000d0d][00101829][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H >>>> >>>> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:d02 >>>> ...[00000d02][002118f1][002118f5] 55 push ebp >>>> ...[00000d03][002118f1][002118f5] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>> ...[00000d05][002118f1][002118f5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>> ...[00000d08][002118ed][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P >>>> ...[00000d09][002118ed][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>> ...[00000d0c][002118e9][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P >>>> ...[00000d0d][002118e5][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H >>>> >>>> ...[00000d02][0025c319][0025c31d] 55 push ebp >>>> ...[00000d03][0025c319][0025c31d] 8bec mov ebp,esp >>>> ...[00000d05][0025c319][0025c31d] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] >>>> ...[00000d08][0025c315][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P >>>> ...[00000d09][0025c315][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] >>>> ...[00000d0c][0025c311][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P >>>> ...[00000d0d][0025c30d][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H >>>> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped >>>> If this means that you are telling me that: >>>> (1) You know the x86 language very well. >>>> >>>> (2) Can't begin to understand why P would be stuck in infinitely nested >>>> simulation while H acts as a pure simulator? >>>> >>> OK, so let's start. >>> There's a line which says "Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine >>> Address:d02". Is that part of the execution trace, or is it a commented added >>> by hand? If it is part of the execution trace, why doesn't this line appear >>> before the second line with the label 0d02? >> The halt decider automatically writes this when it begins the simulation >> that its halt analysis is based on. >> > OK, so why don't we get a second "Begin Local Halt Decider ..." line output? Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:d02 ...[00000d02][002118f1][002118f5] 55 push ebp ...[00000d03][002118f1][002118f5] 8bec mov ebp,esp ...[00000d05][002118f1][002118f5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ...[00000d08][002118ed][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P ...[00000d09][002118ed][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ...[00000d0c][002118e9][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P ...[00000d0d][002118e5][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H ...[00000d02][0025c319][0025c31d] 55 push ebp ...[00000d03][0025c319][0025c31d] 8bec mov ebp,esp ...[00000d05][0025c319][0025c31d] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] ...[00000d08][0025c315][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P ...[00000d09][0025c315][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] ...[00000d0c][0025c311][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P ...[00000d0d][0025c30d][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped The simulation of the input begins and continues until it ends. >>>> >>>> I would say that you must be a liar. >>>> >>> I have a PhD. PhD holder attach a very high value to honesty, in particular >>> with respect to their subjects. But also more generally. I always draw attention >>> if I'm given too much change at the pub, for example, not becaue I'm better >>> than other people, but because I'm a doctor, and a doctor can't be seen to >>> take money that doesn't belong to him. >>> >> So do (1) and (2) apply to you? >> > That was a demand for an apology, but you are too focused on your own > interests to be sensitive to what other people are trying to communicate to you. > I still can't tell whether you are telling the truth or not because you have not yet committed to the actual truth and rejected the falsehood. If (1) and (2) do apply to you then you would be a liar. The point that I am trying to make here is so damn simple that everyone should have agreed to it in less than a week. It has been many months. There is no freaking code in the body of P that can possibly escape infinitely nested simulation while H remains a pure simulator. If you as much as refrain from agreeing to that (and know the x86 language very well) then you would be a liar. -- 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 | 2021-08-12 22:01 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <MnkRI.57209$EF2.37442@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #37828 |
On 8/12/21 8:24 AM, olcott wrote: > On 8/12/2021 3:36 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 06:11:30 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>> On 8/11/2021 5:40 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/11/2021 6:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >>>>> On 8/11/2021 5:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER >>>>>>> WM TO H >>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER >>>>>>> WM TO H >>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER >>>>>>> WM TO H >>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER >>>>>>> WM TO H >>>>>> >>>>>> I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can >>>>>> help in any way, do let me know. >>>>> >>>>> That's not nice. Aren't you afraid that he'll develop carpal tunnel >>>>> syndrome? That along with all of his other deficiencies will surely do >>>>> him in. Perhaps we can invent shortcuts a la LaTeX macros and font >>>>> switches to help him cut down the strain. He wont be insulted and will >>>>> take to it as a pig to mud. Just think, he'll have yet another >>>>> notation to misuse and abuse. >>>> >>>> Ben finally acknowledged the point that I was making: >>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>> >>>> // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx >>>> >>>> My proof requires a whole inference chain that cannot proceed to the >>>> next point until the current point is accepted as correct. >>> In addition to carpal tunnel, you are delusional. I get the vague >>> impression reading the above that you are having a schizoid episode. >>> There is a complete and total discount between what others say to you >>> and your replies. I suggest you cut out some of the examples you like >>> best and show them to your therapist. You do have one, don't you? It may >>> lead to better, more effective treatment. We are all hoping you get >>> better but schizoid episodes are hard to suppress. I assume meds have >>> been prescribed for your condition. Are you taking them? Or are you >>> refusing medical help just as you refuse to allow Ben to heal your >>> ignorance. A little trust in your betters will go a long way towards >>> recovery and a cure. Start now before it's to late. God speed to you. >>> - >> YOu might be right, but I think it's just frustration. His execution >> trace shows >> what appears to be an infinitely recursive process aborted, and >> everyone is >> just ignoring that and focusing on the other reality that his H does not >> return the result that matches the behaviour of the input when run >> independently. >> >> The attempt to use formal math notation when he doesn't understand it >> doesn't help. That can create the impression of mental incoherence, >> but in fact >> it's not that. >> >> Despite a mass of posting, we still don't have a good idea how H works. > > _P() > [00000d02](01) 55 push ebp > [00000d03](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00000d05](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00000d08](01) 50 push eax // push 2nd Param > [00000d09](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00000d0c](01) 51 push ecx // push 1st Param > [00000d0d](05) e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H > [00000d12](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 > [00000d15](02) 85c0 test eax,eax > [00000d17](02) 7402 jz 00000d1b > [00000d19](02) ebfe jmp 00000d19 > [00000d1b](01) 5d pop ebp > [00000d1c](01) c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0027) [00000d1c] > > machine stack stack machine assembly > address address data code language > ======== ======== ======== ========= ============= > ...[00000d0d][00101829][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H > > Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:d02 > ...[00000d02][002118f1][002118f5] 55 push ebp > ...[00000d03][002118f1][002118f5] 8bec mov ebp,esp > ...[00000d05][002118f1][002118f5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > ...[00000d08][002118ed][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P > ...[00000d09][002118ed][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > ...[00000d0c][002118e9][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P > ...[00000d0d][002118e5][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H > > ...[00000d02][0025c319][0025c31d] 55 push ebp > ...[00000d03][0025c319][0025c31d] 8bec mov ebp,esp > ...[00000d05][0025c319][0025c31d] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > ...[00000d08][0025c315][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P > ...[00000d09][0025c315][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > ...[00000d0c][0025c311][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P > ...[00000d0d][0025c30d][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H > Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped > > If this means that you are telling me that: > (1) You know the x86 language very well. > > (2) Can't begin to understand why P would be stuck in infinitely nested > simulation while H acts as a pure simulator? Yes, if H (henceforth Hn) acts like a pure simulator FOREVER, then you have an infinite loop. The problem is this Hn never gives an answer for Hn(Hn^,Hn^) so it isn't a correct decider. Once H know enough to abort its simulation (henceforth Ha) to answer Ha(Ha^,Ha^) then it needs to use that same Ha for what it analyses Ha^, and that Ha doesn't create an infinity nested simulation, just one nested one more level then Ha will simulate, so Ha gets it wrong. Remember, H^ (aka P) is based on H, so as you postulate different version of H, each get their OWN H^ they have to get right. The fact that the aborting Ha can get right the Hm^ for the non-aborting Hn doesn't prove anything. As I have summarized before: Hn^(<Hn^>) is non-Halting Ha^(<Ha^>) is Halting. Hn(<Hn^>, <Hn^>) is itself non-Halting so is wrong for not answering Ha(<Hn^>, <Hn^>) is correct in answering non-Halting, but is uninteresting. Ha(<Ha^>, <Ha^>( is WRONG in answering non-Halting, as Ha^(<Ha^) is halting, and THAT is the problem it needs to get right. It also turns out that Hn(<Ha^>, <Ha^>) will be correct in answering Halting, which is only mildly interesting showing that YOUR 'definition' of the correct answer isn't right based on it being the only answer that can be given.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-12 16:15 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <878s16eltb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37817 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 06:11:30 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote: >> On 8/11/2021 5:40 PM, olcott wrote: >> > On 8/11/2021 6:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote: >> >> On 8/11/2021 5:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> >> >>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >> >>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >> >>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >> >>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H >> >>> >> >>> I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can >> >>> help in any way, do let me know. >> >> >> >> That's not nice. Aren't you afraid that he'll develop carpal tunnel >> >> syndrome? That along with all of his other deficiencies will surely do >> >> him in. Perhaps we can invent shortcuts a la LaTeX macros and font >> >> switches to help him cut down the strain. He wont be insulted and will >> >> take to it as a pig to mud. Just think, he'll have yet another >> >> notation to misuse and abuse. >> > >> > Ben finally acknowledged the point that I was making: >> > >> > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >> > if M applied to wM halts, and >> > >> > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> > if M applied to wM does not halt >> > >> > // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx >> > >> > My proof requires a whole inference chain that cannot proceed to the >> > next point until the current point is accepted as correct. >> In addition to carpal tunnel, you are delusional. I get the vague >> impression reading the above that you are having a schizoid episode. >> There is a complete and total discount between what others say to you >> and your replies. I suggest you cut out some of the examples you like >> best and show them to your therapist. You do have one, don't you? It may >> lead to better, more effective treatment. We are all hoping you get >> better but schizoid episodes are hard to suppress. I assume meds have >> been prescribed for your condition. Are you taking them? Or are you >> refusing medical help just as you refuse to allow Ben to heal your >> ignorance. A little trust in your betters will go a long way towards >> recovery and a cure. Start now before it's to late. God speed to you. >> - > YOu might be right, but I think it's just frustration. His execution > trace shows what appears to be an infinitely recursive process > aborted, and everyone is just ignoring that and focusing on the other > reality that his H does not return the result that matches the > behaviour of the input when run independently. Not everyone. I don't care about the traces (exact the one, never to be repeated, that confirmed that H_Hat(H_Hat) halts) but they have been picked over in great detail by many people. Even you remarked on them not showing what he claimed. > The attempt to use formal math notation when he doesn't understand it > doesn't help. That can create the impression of mental incoherence, > but in fact it's not that. I think this is spot on. He writes formulas in a sort of poetic way, where the intention is to hint at what he wants to communicate. Others (like me) then come along and assume he meant what the formula actually says. And I've recently become convinced that the same is true of his use of technical words. It's a mistake to assume that when he says "an actual Turing machine" he is talking about an actual Turing machine. Halting is a special kind of stopping, not what you or I would call halting. A TM computation is probably "something that happens following rules" rather than a sequence of TM configurations. He's admitted to using poetic license, but it's deeper than that. Words, even technical ones, are used to hint and suggest rather than to convey unambiguous meaning. > Despite a mass of posting, we still don't have a good idea how H > works. There is no H, at least not in any final form. He does not know how to nest invocations of the x86 simulator, so what he has right now is not what he claims. His current "sketch" of H almost certainly just makes calls, and something else detects the recursion (that's "the OS is the halt detector"). He's sure that he can work the code into H one day and everything will be fine. > Academics answer questions about how their programs work. However there's > also politeness. And, for the most part, honesty. PO has failed at all of these. He won't show H, he's not polite and he's not being honest. He has no claim to be doing anything anyone would consider academic research. > However if PO is ill, he should seek help. Not only is he deluded but he has cancer (apparently). I really think anything would be better for him than posting here. I know we could all help by stopping posting ourselves, but it's just so tempting when one is called a liar and/or ignorant (which it why cranks always do that). Every now and then I fell bad for "poking the bear" and then he alters a thread subject line to publicly impugn my character. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-12 10:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. |
| Message-ID | <k72dnWOYWPLzo4j8nZ2dnUU7-QvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37832 |
On 8/12/2021 10:15 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Thursday, 12 August 2021 at 06:11:30 UTC+1, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2021 5:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 8/11/2021 6:32 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
>>>>> On 8/11/2021 5:04 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>> olcott <No...@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
>>>>>>> PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see you are in "paste the same text" again mode. If you think I can
>>>>>> help in any way, do let me know.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not nice. Aren't you afraid that he'll develop carpal tunnel
>>>>> syndrome? That along with all of his other deficiencies will surely do
>>>>> him in. Perhaps we can invent shortcuts a la LaTeX macros and font
>>>>> switches to help him cut down the strain. He wont be insulted and will
>>>>> take to it as a pig to mud. Just think, he'll have yet another
>>>>> notation to misuse and abuse.
>>>>
>>>> Ben finally acknowledged the point that I was making:
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>> if M applied to wM halts, and
>>>>
>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt
>>>>
>>>> // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx
>>>>
>>>> My proof requires a whole inference chain that cannot proceed to the
>>>> next point until the current point is accepted as correct.
>>> In addition to carpal tunnel, you are delusional. I get the vague
>>> impression reading the above that you are having a schizoid episode.
>>> There is a complete and total discount between what others say to you
>>> and your replies. I suggest you cut out some of the examples you like
>>> best and show them to your therapist. You do have one, don't you? It may
>>> lead to better, more effective treatment. We are all hoping you get
>>> better but schizoid episodes are hard to suppress. I assume meds have
>>> been prescribed for your condition. Are you taking them? Or are you
>>> refusing medical help just as you refuse to allow Ben to heal your
>>> ignorance. A little trust in your betters will go a long way towards
>>> recovery and a cure. Start now before it's to late. God speed to you.
>>> -
>> YOu might be right, but I think it's just frustration. His execution
>> trace shows what appears to be an infinitely recursive process
>> aborted, and everyone is just ignoring that and focusing on the other
>> reality that his H does not return the result that matches the
>> behaviour of the input when run independently.
>
> Not everyone. I don't care about the traces (exact the one, never to be
> repeated, that confirmed that H_Hat(H_Hat) halts) but they have been
> picked over in great detail by many people. Even you remarked on them
> not showing what he claimed.
>
>> The attempt to use formal math notation when he doesn't understand it
>> doesn't help. That can create the impression of mental incoherence,
>> but in fact it's not that.
>
> I think this is spot on. He writes formulas in a sort of poetic way,
> where the intention is to hint at what he wants to communicate. Others
> (like me) then come along and assume he meant what the formula
> actually says.
>
> And I've recently become convinced that the same is true of his use of
> technical words. It's a mistake to assume that when he says "an actual
> Turing machine" he is talking about an actual Turing machine. Halting
> is a special kind of stopping, not what you or I would call halting. A
> TM computation is probably "something that happens following rules"
> rather than a sequence of TM configurations. He's admitted to using
> poetic license, but it's deeper than that. Words, even technical ones,
> are used to hint and suggest rather than to convey unambiguous meaning.
>
>> Despite a mass of posting, we still don't have a good idea how H
>> works.
>
My response to Malcolm is quite succinct:
_P()
[00000d02](01) 55 push ebp
[00000d03](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000d05](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000d08](01) 50 push eax // push 2nd Param
[00000d09](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000d0c](01) 51 push ecx // push 1st Param
[00000d0d](05) e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H
[00000d12](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000d15](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00000d17](02) 7402 jz 00000d1b
[00000d19](02) ebfe jmp 00000d19
[00000d1b](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000d1c](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [00000d1c]
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
...[00000d0d][00101829][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:d02
...[00000d02][002118f1][002118f5] 55 push ebp
...[00000d03][002118f1][002118f5] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00000d05][002118f1][002118f5] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00000d08][002118ed][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P
...[00000d09][002118ed][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[00000d0c][002118e9][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P
...[00000d0d][002118e5][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H
...[00000d02][0025c319][0025c31d] 55 push ebp
...[00000d03][0025c319][0025c31d] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00000d05][0025c319][0025c31d] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00000d08][0025c315][00000d02] 50 push eax // push P
...[00000d09][0025c315][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[00000d0c][0025c311][00000d02] 51 push ecx // push P
...[00000d0d][0025c30d][00000d12] e870feffff call 00000b82 // call H
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
If this means that you are telling me that:
(1) You know the x86 language very well.
(2) Can't begin to understand why P would be stuck in infinitely nested
simulation while H acts as a pure simulator?
I would say that you must be a liar.
> There is no H, at least not in any final form. He does not know how to
> nest invocations of the x86 simulator, so what he has right now is not
> what he claims. His current "sketch" of H almost certainly just makes
> calls, and something else detects the recursion (that's "the OS is the
> halt detector"). He's sure that he can work the code into H one day and
> everything will be fine.
>
>> Academics answer questions about how their programs work. However there's
>> also politeness.
>
> And, for the most part, honesty. PO has failed at all of these. He
> won't show H, he's not polite and he's not being honest. He has no
> claim to be doing anything anyone would consider academic research.
>
>> However if PO is ill, he should seek help.
>
> Not only is he deluded but he has cancer (apparently). I really think
> anything would be better for him than posting here. I know we could all
> help by stopping posting ourselves, but it's just so tempting when one
> is called a liar and/or ignorant (which it why cranks always do that).
> Every now and then I fell bad for "poking the bear" and then he alters a
> thread subject line to publicly impugn my character.
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-10 21:42 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. (fixed type) |
| Message-ID | <2-adncqMeNWXpI78nZ2dnUU7-fOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37777 |
On 8/10/2021 9:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/10/2021 8:41 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/10/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/7/2021 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 9:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 5:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The question is not: Does Ĥ halt on its input? >>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The question is: >>>>>>>>>> Does the Ĥ specified by the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt on its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ? >>>>>>>>>> The ansswer to this question is provably no! >>>>>>>>> The question is: does Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt. It does: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION >>>>>>>>> Indeed. There is no contradiction. Just an Ĥ that does not meet Linz >>>>>>>>> spec. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. >>>>>>>> Because it is correct it meets the Linz spec. >>>>>>> I find it startling that you think that, but then it seems you don't yet >>>>>>> know what the key words mean: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>>>> means if the execution of the machine of the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ on its input of >>>>>>>> the seocond ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt then ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>> No. Would you like to know "what M applied to wM does not halt" means? >>>>>>> Do you need help to see that "Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn" is clearly a case of "M >>>>>>> applied to wM halts"? >>>>>> >>>>>> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem >>>>>> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, >>>>>> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a >>>>>> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). >>>>> Yes. I was offering to help you understand the key words in that text. >>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> You've missed off the key lines yet again. Is that deliberate? They >>>>> are the lines that show you are wrong so I am suspicious that you keep >>>>> omitting them. >>>>> >>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ the description of the Turing Machine and its >>>>>> input are specified as: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ for the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx. >>>>> Ungrammatical. >>>>> >>>>>> When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn this is not a final state of the simulated >>>>>> input it is a final state of the executed Ĥ. >>>>> Yes. You don't seem to know why that's wrong. >>>> >>>> What is your basis for believing that is wrong? >>> Ah, a question about what I'm saying. I can help there. The basis is >>> what Linz says about Ĥ. He says that (translating to your notation) >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> should be the case "if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt". But, as you can >>> see, your Ĥ does halt when applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (qn is a halting or final >>> state). Your Ĥ is not doing what it should in this one crucial case. >>> >> >> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem >> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, >> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a >> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). > > and so on. Same old stuff. > > I'm sorry my explanation did not help at all. I'm happy to answer any > other questions you might have if you think it might help you understand > what I (and Linz) are saying. > I went point by point. If I am actually incorrect then you can go point by point and point out each individual error step by step. Of course everyone knows that this is impossible if I am totally correct. - the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem - is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, - does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a - computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). The input to H will be the description (encoded in some form) of M, say WM, as well as the input w. (Linz:1990:318) H.q0 WM w ⊢* H.qn // fixed typo becomes H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong? -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-10 23:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. // fixed typo (link added) |
| Message-ID | <Js2dnYjKie1Bzo78nZ2dnUU7-XnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37777 |
On 8/10/2021 9:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/10/2021 8:41 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/10/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/7/2021 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 9:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 5:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The question is not: Does Ĥ halt on its input? >>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The question is: >>>>>>>>>> Does the Ĥ specified by the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt on its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ? >>>>>>>>>> The ansswer to this question is provably no! >>>>>>>>> The question is: does Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt. It does: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION >>>>>>>>> Indeed. There is no contradiction. Just an Ĥ that does not meet Linz >>>>>>>>> spec. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. >>>>>>>> Because it is correct it meets the Linz spec. >>>>>>> I find it startling that you think that, but then it seems you don't yet >>>>>>> know what the key words mean: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>>>> means if the execution of the machine of the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ on its input of >>>>>>>> the seocond ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt then ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>> No. Would you like to know "what M applied to wM does not halt" means? >>>>>>> Do you need help to see that "Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn" is clearly a case of "M >>>>>>> applied to wM halts"? >>>>>> >>>>>> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem >>>>>> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, >>>>>> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a >>>>>> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). >>>>> Yes. I was offering to help you understand the key words in that text. >>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> You've missed off the key lines yet again. Is that deliberate? They >>>>> are the lines that show you are wrong so I am suspicious that you keep >>>>> omitting them. >>>>> >>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ the description of the Turing Machine and its >>>>>> input are specified as: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ for the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx. >>>>> Ungrammatical. >>>>> >>>>>> When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn this is not a final state of the simulated >>>>>> input it is a final state of the executed Ĥ. >>>>> Yes. You don't seem to know why that's wrong. >>>> >>>> What is your basis for believing that is wrong? >>> Ah, a question about what I'm saying. I can help there. The basis is >>> what Linz says about Ĥ. He says that (translating to your notation) >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> should be the case "if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt". But, as you can >>> see, your Ĥ does halt when applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (qn is a halting or final >>> state). Your Ĥ is not doing what it should in this one crucial case. >>> >> >> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem >> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, >> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a >> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). > > and so on. Same old stuff. > > I'm sorry my explanation did not help at all. I'm happy to answer any > other questions you might have if you think it might help you understand > what I (and Linz) are saying. > I went point by point. If I am actually incorrect then you can go point by point and point out each individual error step by step. Of course everyone knows that this is impossible if I am totally correct. - the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem - is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, - does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a - computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). The input to H will be the description (encoded in some form) of M, say WM, as well as the input w. (Linz:1990:318) H.q0 WM w ⊢* H.qn becomes H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong? http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-11 09:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] |
| Message-ID | <346dnYhkWPUNQ478nZ2dnUU7-UPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37777 |
On 8/10/2021 9:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/10/2021 8:41 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/10/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 8/7/2021 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 9:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 5:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> The question is not: Does Ĥ halt on its input? >>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The question is: >>>>>>>>>> Does the Ĥ specified by the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt on its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ? >>>>>>>>>> The ansswer to this question is provably no! >>>>>>>>> The question is: does Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt. It does: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION >>>>>>>>> Indeed. There is no contradiction. Just an Ĥ that does not meet Linz >>>>>>>>> spec. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. >>>>>>>> Because it is correct it meets the Linz spec. >>>>>>> I find it startling that you think that, but then it seems you don't yet >>>>>>> know what the key words mean: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>>>> means if the execution of the machine of the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ on its input of >>>>>>>> the seocond ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt then ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>> No. Would you like to know "what M applied to wM does not halt" means? >>>>>>> Do you need help to see that "Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn" is clearly a case of "M >>>>>>> applied to wM halts"? >>>>>> >>>>>> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem >>>>>> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, >>>>>> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a >>>>>> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). >>>>> Yes. I was offering to help you understand the key words in that text. >>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> You've missed off the key lines yet again. Is that deliberate? They >>>>> are the lines that show you are wrong so I am suspicious that you keep >>>>> omitting them. >>>>> >>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ the description of the Turing Machine and its >>>>>> input are specified as: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ for the embedded halt decider at Ĥ.qx. >>>>> Ungrammatical. >>>>> >>>>>> When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn this is not a final state of the simulated >>>>>> input it is a final state of the executed Ĥ. >>>>> Yes. You don't seem to know why that's wrong. >>>> >>>> What is your basis for believing that is wrong? >>> Ah, a question about what I'm saying. I can help there. The basis is >>> what Linz says about Ĥ. He says that (translating to your notation) >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> should be the case "if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt". But, as you can >>> see, your Ĥ does halt when applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (qn is a halting or final >>> state). Your Ĥ is not doing what it should in this one crucial case. >>> >> >> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem >> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, >> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a >> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). > > and so on. Same old stuff. > When the challenge to support one's assertion with reasoning is simply ignored as you are ignoring it right now one can reasonably construe a deceptive intent. -- the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem -- is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, -- does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a -- computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H The input to H will be the description (encoded in some form) of M, say WM, as well as the input w. (Linz:1990:318) H.q0 WM w ⊢* H.qn if M applied to W does not halt. becomes H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. Pages of the Linz text to verify the above quotes in their full context: http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf M STILL REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO Ĥ.qx M STILL REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO Ĥ.qx M STILL REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO Ĥ.qx M STILL REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO Ĥ.qx Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if M applied to wM does not halt When we know that M refers to the Turing machine specified by the first wM then when Ĥ transitions to its final state of Ĥ.qn there is no direct contradiction formed. Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong? Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong? Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong? Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong? if M applied to wM does not halt (see above for definition of M) means when the Turing machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn Ĥ.qx correctly transitions to its final state when the Ĥ.qx acts as a UTM and simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and determines that this input never halts. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation > I'm sorry my explanation did not help at all. I'm happy to answer any > other questions you might have if you think it might help you understand > what I (and Linz) are saying. > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-11 09:58 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] |
| Message-ID | <Ja-dneAl3poPeI78nZ2dnUU7-UvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37787 |
On 8/11/2021 9:28 AM, olcott wrote: > On 8/10/2021 9:26 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/10/2021 8:41 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 8/10/2021 7:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 8/7/2021 7:34 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 9:36 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 8/5/2021 5:14 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> The question is not: Does Ĥ halt on its input? >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes it is. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The question is: >>>>>>>>>>> Does the Ĥ specified by the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt on its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ? >>>>>>>>>>> The ansswer to this question is provably no! >>>>>>>>>> The question is: does Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halt. It does: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn THIS IS NOT A CONTRADICTION >>>>>>>>>> Indeed. There is no contradiction. Just an Ĥ that does not >>>>>>>>>> meet Linz >>>>>>>>>> spec. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. >>>>>>>>> Because it is correct it meets the Linz spec. >>>>>>>> I find it startling that you think that, but then it seems you >>>>>>>> don't yet >>>>>>>> know what the key words mean: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>>>>> means if the execution of the machine of the first ⟨Ĥ⟩ on its >>>>>>>>> input of >>>>>>>>> the seocond ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt then ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>> No. Would you like to know "what M applied to wM does not halt" >>>>>>>> means? >>>>>>>> Do you need help to see that "Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn" is clearly a >>>>>>>> case of "M >>>>>>>> applied to wM halts"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the >>>>>>> problem >>>>>>> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an >>>>>>> input w, >>>>>>> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, >>>>>>> perform a >>>>>>> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). >>>>>> Yes. I was offering to help you understand the key words in that >>>>>> text. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>> You've missed off the key lines yet again. Is that deliberate? They >>>>>> are the lines that show you are wrong so I am suspicious that you >>>>>> keep >>>>>> omitting them. >>>>>> >>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ the description of the Turing Machine >>>>>>> and its >>>>>>> input are specified as: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ for the embedded halt decider at >>>>>>> Ĥ.qx. >>>>>> Ungrammatical. >>>>>> >>>>>>> When Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn this is not a final state of the simulated >>>>>>> input it is a final state of the executed Ĥ. >>>>>> Yes. You don't seem to know why that's wrong. >>>>> >>>>> What is your basis for believing that is wrong? >>>> Ah, a question about what I'm saying. I can help there. The basis is >>>> what Linz says about Ĥ. He says that (translating to your notation) >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> should be the case "if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt". But, as you >>>> can >>>> see, your Ĥ does halt when applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (qn is a halting or final >>>> state). Your Ĥ is not doing what it should in this one crucial case. >>>> >>> >>> the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem >>> is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, >>> does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a >>> computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). >> >> and so on. Same old stuff. >> > > When the challenge to support one's assertion with reasoning is simply > ignored as you are ignoring it right now one can reasonably construe a > deceptive intent. > > -- the Turing machine halting problem. Simply stated, the problem > -- is: given the description of a Turing machine M and an input w, > -- does M, when started in the initial configuration q0w, perform a > -- computation that eventually halts? (Linz:1990:317). > > PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H > > The input to H will be the description (encoded in some form) of M, say > WM, as well as the input w. (Linz:1990:318) > > H.q0 WM w ⊢* H.qn > if M applied to W does not halt. > > becomes > > H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn > if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. > > > Pages of the Linz text to verify the above quotes in their full context: > http://www.liarparadox.org/Peter_Linz_HP(Pages_315-320).pdf > > M STILL REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO Ĥ.qx > M STILL REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO Ĥ.qx > M STILL REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO Ĥ.qx > M STILL REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO Ĥ.qx > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if M applied to wM does not halt > > When we know that M refers to the Turing machine specified by the first > wM then when Ĥ transitions to its final state of Ĥ.qn there is no direct > contradiction formed. > > Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong? > Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong? > Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong? > Can you admit when you are wrong when you really are wrong? > > if M applied to wM does not halt (see above for definition of M) > means when the Turing machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > Ĥ.qx correctly transitions to its final state when the Ĥ.qx acts as a > UTM and simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and determines that this input never halts. > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ if M applied to wM halts, and // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if M applied to wM does not halt // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-11 17:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] |
| Message-ID | <87fsvggdxz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37788 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/11/2021 9:28 AM, olcott wrote: Subject: Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] This is a scumbag move. It's also cowardly and disingenuous -- pretending to be coy about your scumbag opinions. I'll leave it unedited as it says everything readers need to know about your character. >> When the challenge to support one's assertion with reasoning is simply >> ignored as you are ignoring it right now one can reasonably construe >> a deceptive intent. A scumbag could construe it that way. Reasonable people could come to all sorts of other conclusions. >> H.q0 WM w ⊢* H.qn >> if M applied to W does not halt. if M applied to MW does not halt. (typo corrected) >> becomes >> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn >> if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. Yes. After a lot a pressing (and I mean lots, over several years!) you eventually admitted that H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does indeed transition to H.qn. You also keep telling us that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. That's why your H (and its associated Ĥ) are wrong but for some reason you can't see this. You will plainly state that H rejects the string "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩" which it should do if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. And you will, time and time again, show us exactly how Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. This should be the end of the matter, but apparently your stating facts that show that H and Ĥ are wrong does not mean you know that H and Ĥ are wrong. I don't think I know any way to make progress on this. >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> if M applied to wM does not halt ... >> if M applied to wM does not halt (see above for definition of >> M) means when the Turing machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. Of course. We all know that. Unless you are pulling a fast one. "the Turing machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩" is just Ĥ. Is there a reason you are not simply saying "when Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt"? >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> Ĥ.qx correctly transitions to its final state when the Ĥ.qx acts as a >> UTM and simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ and determines that this input never halts. Yes, we know the ruse: the computation would not halt if it were not the computation that it is. You've been trying to pull off this trick ever since the infamous "it wouldn't halt if line 15 was commented out" admission. Your Ĥ, however, not being a UTM, has the property that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn when it should not. Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ should eventually transition to qn only "if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt" (or, as you rather suspiciously write "if the Turing machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt"). But you've told us, time and time again, that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You keep showing us the summary description of it's configuration sequence. You keep showing us the final state it transitions to. It's so obvious, someone would need about 16 years misunderstanding Turing machines to avoid seeing it. > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ > if M applied to wM halts, and // M refers to the TM of the first wM > parameter to Ĥ.qx > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if M applied to wM does not halt // M refers to the TM of the first wM > parameter to Ĥ.qx The case you care about has M = Ĥ and wM = ⟨Ĥ⟩ as you've written it out above. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-11 11:52 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] |
| Message-ID | <HISdnXl3NPSvnYn8nZ2dnUU7-eHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37793 |
On 8/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/11/2021 9:28 AM, olcott wrote: > > Subject: Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no > contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] > > This is a scumbag move. It's also cowardly and disingenuous -- > pretending to be coy about your scumbag opinions. I'll leave it > unedited as it says everything readers need to know about your > character. > >>> When the challenge to support one's assertion with reasoning is simply >>> ignored as you are ignoring it right now one can reasonably construe >>> a deceptive intent. > > A scumbag could construe it that way. Reasonable people could come to > all sorts of other conclusions. > >>> H.q0 WM w ⊢* H.qn >>> if M applied to W does not halt. > if M applied to MW does not halt. > > (typo corrected) > >>> becomes >>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn >>> if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. > > Yes. After a lot a pressing (and I mean lots, over several years!) you > eventually admitted that H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does indeed transition to H.qn. You are saying that in a misleading way. Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn The Turing machine of Ĥ halts on input ⟨Ĥ⟩ because the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decides that its simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ on input ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts. > You also keep telling us that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. That's why your H > (and its associated Ĥ) are wrong but for some reason you can't see this. > > You will plainly state that H rejects the string "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩" which it > should do if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. And you > will, time and time again, show us exactly how Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. > The Ĥ of the first parameter to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts thus the Ĥ of the Turing machine Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn correctly transitions to its final state of Ĥ.qn The full Linz proof is included at the end of the paper with the portion of the Linz text that proves M refers to the first parameter WM to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩⟨Ĥ⟩ highlighted in YELLOW. Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ if M applied to wM halts, and Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn // see highlighted portion of Linz text to confirm: if M applied to wM does not halt // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation > This should be the end of the matter, but apparently your stating facts > that show that H and Ĥ are wrong does not mean you know that H and Ĥ are > wrong. I don't think I know any way to make progress on this. > >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> if M applied to wM does not halt > ... >>> if M applied to wM does not halt (see above for definition of >>> M) means when the Turing machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. > > Of course. We all know that. Unless you are pulling a fast one. "the > Turing machine of ⟨Ĥ⟩" is just Ĥ. Is there a reason you are not simply > saying "when Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt"? > The simulation of the parameter to Ĥ on input ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt on the copy of this parameter. I can prove what I am saying with Linz text, you cannot prove what you are saying at all. PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H PROOF THAT M REFERS TO THE TURING MACHINE DESCRIPTION PARAMETER WM TO H The input to H will be the description (encoded in some form) of M, say WM, as well as the input w. (Linz:1990:318) H.q0 WM w ⊢* H.qn if M applied to W does not halt. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-12 01:35 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] |
| Message-ID | <878s17fqji.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37795 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/11/2021 9:28 AM, olcott wrote: >> Subject: Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no >> contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] >> This is a scumbag move. It's also cowardly and disingenuous -- >> pretending to be coy about your scumbag opinions. I'll leave it >> unedited as it says everything readers need to know about your >> character. >> >>>> When the challenge to support one's assertion with reasoning is simply >>>> ignored as you are ignoring it right now one can reasonably construe >>>> a deceptive intent. >> A scumbag could construe it that way. Reasonable people could come to >> all sorts of other conclusions. >> >>>> H.q0 WM w ⊢* H.qn >>>> if M applied to W does not halt. >> if M applied to MW does not halt. >> (typo corrected) >> >>>> becomes >>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn >>>> if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >> Yes. After a lot a pressing (and I mean lots, over several years!) you >> eventually admitted that H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does indeed transition to H.qn. > > You are saying that in a misleading way. Curious. I agree with what say but it's misleading. Why? Did you not continually resist saying whether the TM you (falsely, as it happened) claimed to have accepted or rejected the key input? When, in your recollection did you first say which it was without any equivocation? > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > The Turing machine of Ĥ halts on input ⟨Ĥ⟩ because the simulating halt > decider at Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decides that its simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ > on input ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts. Garbled. What is "The Turing machine of Ĥ"? You can't mean Ĥ or your would have just said Ĥ. >> You also keep telling us that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. That's why your H >> (and its associated Ĥ) are wrong but for some reason you can't see this. >> You will plainly state that H rejects the string "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩" which it >> should do if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. And you >> will, time and time again, show us exactly how Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. > > The Ĥ of the first parameter to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts Garbled. But who cares? Your H rejects the string "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩", but your Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. This is not what Linz requires of your H/Ĥ. End of story. If you want to retract ether of these statements about your H/Ĥ, please do, but until you do your H/Ĥ are of no interest as far as the proof is concerned. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-11 19:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] |
| Message-ID | <hMqdnWbwOMFh8In8nZ2dnUU7-dmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37805 |
On 8/11/2021 7:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/11/2021 9:28 AM, olcott wrote: >>> Subject: Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no >>> contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] >>> This is a scumbag move. It's also cowardly and disingenuous -- >>> pretending to be coy about your scumbag opinions. I'll leave it >>> unedited as it says everything readers need to know about your >>> character. >>> >>>>> When the challenge to support one's assertion with reasoning is simply >>>>> ignored as you are ignoring it right now one can reasonably construe >>>>> a deceptive intent. >>> A scumbag could construe it that way. Reasonable people could come to >>> all sorts of other conclusions. >>> >>>>> H.q0 WM w ⊢* H.qn >>>>> if M applied to W does not halt. >>> if M applied to MW does not halt. >>> (typo corrected) >>> >>>>> becomes >>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn >>>>> if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >>> Yes. After a lot a pressing (and I mean lots, over several years!) you >>> eventually admitted that H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does indeed transition to H.qn. >> >> You are saying that in a misleading way. > > Curious. I agree with what say but it's misleading. Why? Did you not > continually resist saying whether the TM you (falsely, as it happened) > claimed to have accepted or rejected the key input? When, in your > recollection did you first say which it was without any equivocation? > >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> The Turing machine of Ĥ halts on input ⟨Ĥ⟩ because the simulating halt >> decider at Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decides that its simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ >> on input ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts. > > Garbled. What is "The Turing machine of Ĥ"? You can't mean Ĥ or your > would have just said Ĥ. > >>> You also keep telling us that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. That's why your H >>> (and its associated Ĥ) are wrong but for some reason you can't see this. >>> You will plainly state that H rejects the string "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩" which it >>> should do if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. And you >>> will, time and time again, show us exactly how Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. >> >> The Ĥ of the first parameter to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts > > Garbled. But who cares? Your H rejects the string "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩", but your > Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. This is not what Linz requires of your H/Ĥ. End > of story. If you want to retract ether of these statements about your > H/Ĥ, please do, but until you do your H/Ĥ are of no interest as far as > the proof is concerned. > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ if M applied to wM halts, and Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if M applied to wM does not halt // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx Now that you accept that the above is true we can move on to the next point. My proof must proceed exactly one point at a time an cannot possibly move to the next point until the current point is fully accepted. That you believe that the fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to its final state of Ĥ.qn and halts nullifies the fact that Ĥ.qx wM wM does correctly decide that its input never halts is the next point. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-11 19:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) |
| Message-ID | <yuGdneaGkeN-84n8nZ2dnUU7-cnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37805 |
On 8/11/2021 7:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/11/2021 9:28 AM, olcott wrote: >>> Subject: Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no >>> contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] >>> This is a scumbag move. It's also cowardly and disingenuous -- >>> pretending to be coy about your scumbag opinions. I'll leave it >>> unedited as it says everything readers need to know about your >>> character. >>> >>>>> When the challenge to support one's assertion with reasoning is simply >>>>> ignored as you are ignoring it right now one can reasonably construe >>>>> a deceptive intent. >>> A scumbag could construe it that way. Reasonable people could come to >>> all sorts of other conclusions. >>> >>>>> H.q0 WM w ⊢* H.qn >>>>> if M applied to W does not halt. >>> if M applied to MW does not halt. >>> (typo corrected) >>> >>>>> becomes >>>>> H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn >>>>> if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. >>> Yes. After a lot a pressing (and I mean lots, over several years!) you >>> eventually admitted that H.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does indeed transition to H.qn. >> >> You are saying that in a misleading way. > > Curious. I agree with what say but it's misleading. Why? Did you not > continually resist saying whether the TM you (falsely, as it happened) > claimed to have accepted or rejected the key input? When, in your > recollection did you first say which it was without any equivocation? > >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> The Turing machine of Ĥ halts on input ⟨Ĥ⟩ because the simulating halt >> decider at Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decides that its simulation of ⟨Ĥ⟩ >> on input ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts. > > Garbled. What is "The Turing machine of Ĥ"? You can't mean Ĥ or your > would have just said Ĥ. > >>> You also keep telling us that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. That's why your H >>> (and its associated Ĥ) are wrong but for some reason you can't see this. >>> You will plainly state that H rejects the string "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩" which it >>> should do if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. And you >>> will, time and time again, show us exactly how Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. >> >> The Ĥ of the first parameter to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts > > Garbled. But who cares? Your H rejects the string "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩", but your > Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. This is not what Linz requires of your H/Ĥ. End > of story. If you want to retract ether of these statements about your > H/Ĥ, please do, but until you do your H/Ĥ are of no interest as far as > the proof is concerned. > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ if M applied to wM halts, and Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if M applied to wM does not halt // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx Now that you accept that the above is true we can move on to the next point. My proof must proceed exactly one point at a time an cannot possibly move to the next point until the current point is fully accepted. That you believe that the fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to its final state of Ĥ.qn and halts nullifies the fact that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ does correctly decide that its input never halts is the next point. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-12 21:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) |
| Message-ID | <87bl62cu25.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37807 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ > if M applied to wM halts, and > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if M applied to wM does not halt > > // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx > > Now that you accept that the above is true... I don't. It's a garbled formula arising from a silly error on your part. I'd like to know where (you think) I said I accept this nonsense so I can correct any such impression. > ... we can move on to the next point. My proof must proceed exactly > one point at a time an cannot possibly move to the next point until > the current point is fully accepted. It would be simpler if we worked though the reasons you are wrong because there are fewer steps. You've stated that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn and you accept (at least you keep quoting) that Linz requires that this should be the case only if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. QED. > That you believe that the fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to > its final state of Ĥ.qn and halts nullifies the fact that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ > does correctly decide that its input never halts is the next point. ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a string that encodes a halting computation as shown a few lines above. That Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts does not "nullify" anything, it's just wrong as clearly stated by Linz. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-12 15:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) |
| Message-ID | <qeedncFT9pmvG4j8nZ2dnUU7-RnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37838 |
On 8/12/2021 3:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >> if M applied to wM halts, and >> >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> if M applied to wM does not halt >> >> // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx >> >> Now that you accept that the above is true... > > I don't. It's a garbled formula arising from a silly error on your > part. I'd like to know where (you think) I said I accept this nonsense > so I can correct any such impression. > >> ... we can move on to the next point. My proof must proceed exactly >> one point at a time an cannot possibly move to the next point until >> the current point is fully accepted. > > It would be simpler if we worked though the reasons you are wrong > because there are fewer steps. > > You've stated that > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > > and you accept (at least you keep quoting) that Linz requires that this > should be the case only if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. QED. > >> That you believe that the fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to >> its final state of Ĥ.qn and halts nullifies the fact that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >> does correctly decide that its input never halts is the next point. > > ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a string that encodes a halting computation as shown a few > lines above. That Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts does not "nullify" anything, > it's just wrong as clearly stated by Linz. > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a string that encodes a halting computation. Ĥ is a TM that halts only because Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decides that its input never halts. When you examine this in its x86utm equivalent of H(P,P) there are no loopholes that can slip through the cracks because every detail is explicitly encoded in the x86 language. When we examine this as Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ there are millions of pages of Turing machine code that cannot be explicitly specified. None-the-less the key element of all this is the fact that if we assume that the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx is simply a UTM then it becomes quite obvious that we have an infinite cycle from Ĥ.qx to Ĥ.q0. Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn If we know that we have an infinite cycle then this knowledge all by itself proves that the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx must abort the simulation of its input which proves that this input never halts. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-12 22:10 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) |
| Message-ID | <87wnoqbc8k.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37840 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/12/2021 3:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>> >>> // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx >>> >>> Now that you accept that the above is true... >> >> I don't. It's a garbled formula arising from a silly error on your >> part. I'd like to know where (you think) I said I accept this nonsense >> so I can correct any such impression. I'd like to know, please. >>> ... we can move on to the next point. My proof must proceed exactly >>> one point at a time an cannot possibly move to the next point until >>> the current point is fully accepted. >> It would be simpler if we worked though the reasons you are wrong >> because there are fewer steps. >> You've stated that >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> and you accept (at least you keep quoting) that Linz requires that this >> should be the case only if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. QED. You need to come clean. You keep stating that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn but you can't admit that Linz says this should only happen if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. You can't keep scrolling past this problem in order to say other stuff. No other stuff can change either what Linz says, nor what happens when Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩. >>> That you believe that the fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to >>> its final state of Ĥ.qn and halts nullifies the fact that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>> does correctly decide that its input never halts is the next point. >> >> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a string that encodes a halting computation as shown a few >> lines above. That Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts does not "nullify" anything, >> it's just wrong as clearly stated by Linz. > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a string that encodes a halting computation. Ah. You are just going to write one line that shows that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a string that encodes a halting computation and immediately follow it with a statement to the contrary. That's an odd strategy. You are flat-out wrong about that second line: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a string that encodes a halting computation, and until you accept that you are just spouting nonsense. By the way, this is not why your Ĥ is not as Linz specifies. That is shown by the first line along with the accompanying text from Linz. The fact that you are wrong about the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is just an aside to the main argument that you keep skipping over. > Ĥ is a TM that halts only because > Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decides that its input never halts. ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a string that encodes a halting computation, specifically the computation consisting of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩. > When you examine this in its x86utm equivalent... Don't you think you should find out why you are wrong about TMs first? After all, the argument is just a few lines. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-12 16:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) |
| Message-ID | <BaydnVNJfr5kDIj8nZ2dnUU7-dHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37841 |
On 8/12/2021 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/12/2021 3:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>> >>>> // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx >>>> >>>> Now that you accept that the above is true... >>> >>> I don't. It's a garbled formula arising from a silly error on your >>> part. I'd like to know where (you think) I said I accept this nonsense >>> so I can correct any such impression. > > I'd like to know, please. The above is a cut-and-paste of the same corrected and clarified version of Linz that I have been referring to for over a year. I didn't change it. I added this one line: // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx > >>>> ... we can move on to the next point. My proof must proceed exactly >>>> one point at a time an cannot possibly move to the next point until >>>> the current point is fully accepted. >>> It would be simpler if we worked though the reasons you are wrong >>> because there are fewer steps. >>> You've stated that >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> and you accept (at least you keep quoting) that Linz requires that this >>> should be the case only if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. QED. > > You need to come clean. You keep stating that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to > Ĥ.qn but you can't admit that Linz says this should only happen if Ĥ > applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. You can't keep scrolling past this > problem in order to say other stuff. No other stuff can change either > what Linz says, nor what happens when Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩. > >>>> That you believe that the fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to >>>> its final state of Ĥ.qn and halts nullifies the fact that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>> does correctly decide that its input never halts is the next point. >>> >>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a string that encodes a halting computation as shown a few >>> lines above. That Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts does not "nullify" anything, >>> it's just wrong as clearly stated by Linz. >> >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a string that encodes a halting computation. > > Ah. You are just going to write one line that shows that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a > string that encodes a halting computation and immediately follow it with > a statement to the contrary. That's an odd strategy. > > You are flat-out wrong about that second line: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a string that > encodes a halting computation, and until you accept that you are just > spouting nonsense. > > By the way, this is not why your Ĥ is not as Linz specifies. That is > shown by the first line along with the accompanying text from Linz. The > fact that you are wrong about the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is just an aside to the > main argument that you keep skipping over. > >> Ĥ is a TM that halts only because >> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ correctly decides that its input never halts. > > ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a string that encodes a halting computation, specifically the > computation consisting of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩. > >> When you examine this in its x86utm equivalent... > > Don't you think you should find out why you are wrong about TMs first? > After all, the argument is just a few lines. > Let move one step at a time: Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn Can you see that the above never halts if Ĥ.qx us a UTM? -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-13 00:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) |
| Message-ID | <87r1eyb75p.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37842 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/12/2021 4:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/12/2021 3:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>> >>>>> // M refers to the TM of the first wM parameter to Ĥ.qx >>>>> >>>>> Now that you accept that the above is true... >>>> >>>> I don't. It's a garbled formula arising from a silly error on your >>>> part. I'd like to know where (you thinkq) I said I accept this nonsense >>>> so I can correct any such impression. >> >> I'd like to know, please. > > The above is a cut-and-paste of the same corrected and clarified > version of Linz that I have been referring to for over a year. I > didn't change it. I can't find any example (in an exchange with me) older than 8 weeks. Anyway, I can't correct the impression if you can't point to the post that made you think I accepted this bizarre set of symbols. >>>>> ... we can move on to the next point. My proof must proceed exactly >>>>> one point at a time an cannot possibly move to the next point until >>>>> the current point is fully accepted. >>>> It would be simpler if we worked though the reasons you are wrong >>>> because there are fewer steps. >>>> You've stated that >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> and you accept (at least you keep quoting) that Linz requires that this >>>> should be the case only if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. QED. >> >> You need to come clean. You keep stating that Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to >> Ĥ.qn but you can't admit that Linz says this should only happen if Ĥ >> applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. You can't keep scrolling past this >> problem in order to say other stuff. No other stuff can change either >> what Linz says, nor what happens when Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩. You just scroll past a succinct demonstration that you are wrong in order to play some games later on. That won't wash. This is the *first* thing you will be told in the rejection letter for your paper. >>>>> That you believe that the fact that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ transitions to >>>>> its final state of Ĥ.qn and halts nullifies the fact that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>> does correctly decide that its input never halts is the next point. >>>> >>>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a string that encodes a halting computation as shown a few >>>> lines above. That Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts does not "nullify" anything, >>>> it's just wrong as clearly stated by Linz. >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a string that encodes a halting computation. >> >> Ah. You are just going to write one line that shows that ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a >> string that encodes a halting computation and immediately follow it with >> a statement to the contrary. That's an odd strategy. >> >> You are flat-out wrong about that second line: ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is a string that >> encodes a halting computation, and until you accept that you are just >> spouting nonsense. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you make statements like this? You are wrong about the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ because of what you said one line previously. It's insane that you think you can get away with this and no one will pick you up on it. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 19 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 17 18 [19] 20 21 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web