Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #38464 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-08-28 11:47 -0500 |
| Last post | 2021-08-28 20:00 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 733 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 11:47 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 14:52 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 14:12 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 16:24 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 15:33 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 16:46 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 16:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 18:29 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 17:38 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 17:38 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 19:32 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 18:46 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 18:51 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 20:07 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 23:00 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 07:00 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 08:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-29 16:20 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 10:30 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-29 17:19 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 11:36 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-30 01:00 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 20:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-31 03:17 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 21:35 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-31 04:04 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 22:20 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-30 21:35 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 23:00 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-30 22:19 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 23:31 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-30 22:45 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 09:24 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 09:07 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 11:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 11:11 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 10:31 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 11:49 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 11:00 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 12:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 12:40 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 14:11 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 14:08 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 16:34 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 16:40 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 18:29 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 17:39 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 19:16 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 20:47 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 18:52 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 21:23 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-31 14:17 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 16:48 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 19:26 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 21:08 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 19:23 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 06:35 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-31 14:55 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 09:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 20:59 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-01 03:28 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 21:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-08-31 23:05 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 11:22 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 12:43 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 12:06 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 15:42 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-28 18:42 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 22:52 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-28 22:07 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 23:13 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-28 22:32 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ dishonesty ? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 23:27 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ dishonesty ? ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-28 22:34 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ dishonesty ? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 23:50 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ dishonesty ? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 08:20 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 13:53 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 13:32 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 14:40 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 13:48 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 14:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 16:42 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 16:16 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 18:35 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 20:39 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 21:52 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 19:54 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 21:14 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 22:35 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 20:38 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 21:51 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 21:00 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 22:17 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 21:43 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 22:54 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-30 06:24 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 09:02 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-30 20:13 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-31 03:12 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 21:30 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-31 03:53 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 22:11 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 06:38 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-31 15:04 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 09:30 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 21:03 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-01 03:45 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 22:09 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 22:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-09-01 07:51 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 21:47 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 23:10 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 22:26 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 23:32 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 22:52 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 08:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 08:54 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 09:13 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 19:04 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 02:19 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 08:27 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 19:06 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-02 02:40 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 09:15 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 16:19 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 10:34 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 22:02 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 18:12 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 22:00 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 16:46 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 18:41 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 17:54 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 19:02 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-04 16:25 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 22:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-05 13:02 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 15:13 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 17:36 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Mike <usenet@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-05 23:37 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-09-05 20:16 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 09:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-09-06 11:06 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 10:26 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 12:04 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 14:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 14:22 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 15:50 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 15:37 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 16:59 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 16:58 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 18:21 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 17:39 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 18:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:04 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 18:13 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 19:46 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 19:07 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 20:32 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 20:23 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 21:30 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 21:34 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 21:49 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 22:08 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 23:35 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 23:36 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 08:51 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 08:14 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 09:26 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-07 08:18 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 10:34 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 19:04 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 09:39 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 11:02 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 10:46 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 12:01 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 12:14 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 13:17 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 13:39 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 14:49 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 15:07 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 19:06 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 19:16 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 18:46 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 20:49 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 05:59 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 09:13 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 19:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 18:38 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 20:52 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 06:40 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 06:30 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-09-06 21:47 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-09-06 21:31 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 22:32 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 21:31 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 19:56 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 19:39 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 19:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 21:38 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 20:50 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 20:53 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 22:52 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 21:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 23:37 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:46 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 06:04 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 11:10 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 09:00 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 16:30 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 10:45 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 19:11 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 18:44 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 20:55 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 01:25 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 19:39 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 21:01 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 03:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 19:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 18:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 21:03 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 22:48 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 21:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 23:06 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:14 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 23:45 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:51 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 06:10 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 09:26 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 09:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 11:21 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 00:09 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 23:27 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 16:33 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 10:52 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 13:03 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 19:48 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 14:05 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 23:46 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 10:00 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 11:22 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 21:24 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 16:06 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 19:10 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 18:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:10 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-02 09:10 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 11:32 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 21:38 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 06:42 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-01 15:34 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-01 08:45 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 09:52 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 19:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 06:38 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 06:21 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-01 15:44 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 10:05 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 19:43 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 01:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 20:34 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 02:42 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 21:18 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 22:34 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Pathological Input ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 21:53 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Pathological Input ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-01 22:56 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Pathological Input ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 00:09 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Pathological Input ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-01 23:48 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Pathological Input ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 10:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Pathological Input ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 06:17 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 12:28 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 10:23 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 22:00 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 18:20 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-02 17:46 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 19:01 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-02 18:20 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 19:32 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-02 19:10 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 22:21 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 01:27 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 19:40 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 02:05 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 20:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 02:29 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 20:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 22:24 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 21:26 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 22:54 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 21:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 23:15 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 03:42 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 21:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 23:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 22:18 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 23:52 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 23:09 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-02 22:59 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:05 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 12:49 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 15:11 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 16:58 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 16:23 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 17:31 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 06:32 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-03 04:47 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 14:41 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:20 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 15:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 08:51 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 08:09 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:24 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 08:33 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:46 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 09:12 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 10:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 09:43 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 15:01 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 14:24 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 15:31 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 14:58 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 16:18 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 17:43 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 15:46 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 17:14 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 18:46 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 17:00 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 18:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-09-03 17:45 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 22:36 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 17:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 00:02 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 19:03 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 01:20 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 19:27 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 21:10 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 20:36 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 22:07 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 22:30 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-03 23:12 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 08:45 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 10:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 09:49 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 11:22 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 10:32 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 11:54 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 11:21 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 12:40 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 12:01 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 13:21 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 12:41 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 14:08 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 13:14 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 14:28 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 13:52 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 21:56 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 18:34 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 19:13 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-04 02:05 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 20:31 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 20:51 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 15:06 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 22:00 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 17:55 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 20:49 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Mike <usenet@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-05 03:59 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-09-04 12:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-09-04 13:59 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 21:26 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 16:13 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 22:37 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 16:27 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 15:36 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 17:06 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 11:41 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 14:52 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 16:11 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 11:47 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 11:34 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 10:39 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 11:51 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:09 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 12:01 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 15:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 10:02 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 16:18 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 12:02 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 21:16 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 03:47 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 21:56 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-09-02 22:29 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 15:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 10:01 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 16:16 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 10:30 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 16:50 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 14:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 16:34 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 15:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 17:50 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 22:40 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 17:27 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 01:07 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 19:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 11:57 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 11:26 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 12:42 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 12:05 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 13:27 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 12:44 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 14:11 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 13:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 15:11 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 14:47 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 16:17 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 17:36 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 18:47 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 18:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 20:14 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 23:02 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 06:40 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 00:34 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 22:58 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 06:44 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 16:22 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 10:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 17:24 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 11:48 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 12:16 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 13:21 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 12:34 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 14:26 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 13:50 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 15:32 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 20:48 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 15:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 17:45 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 00:14 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 10:15 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 09:30 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 11:07 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 10:17 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 14:14 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 14:15 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 15:38 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 15:28 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 16:41 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 16:53 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-07 02:55 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 21:07 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:17 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:13 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 12:25 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 14:20 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:23 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 20:26 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 14:31 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 20:59 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 15:56 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 22:03 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 17:07 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 19:20 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 01:24 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 19:17 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 18:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 17:55 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 19:37 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 19:01 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 20:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 21:23 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 19:33 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 20:45 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 21:19 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:37 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-07 16:50 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 11:04 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 11:09 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 10:41 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 11:59 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 11:55 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 13:15 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 23:26 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 17:38 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 01:52 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 20:12 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-08 02:26 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 20:45 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 21:52 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 21:11 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 22:22 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 11:32 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 21:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 16:18 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 23:55 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 18:32 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 01:40 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 19:49 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 02:09 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 20:40 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 02:57 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 21:17 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 22:56 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:05 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 23:51 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:59 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 06:28 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 11:54 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 09:07 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 16:31 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 10:51 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 01:42 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 20:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 21:12 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 20:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 21:55 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 21:18 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 22:27 -0400
H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 21:53 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 21:09 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 22:18 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 00:14 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 09:20 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 08:48 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 11:26 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 17:49 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 14:09 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 21:42 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 15:49 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 23:11 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 17:36 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 01:21 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 19:41 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 21:18 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:21 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:05 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 22:09 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:31 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 02:54 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:07 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 12:02 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 08:59 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 16:32 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 10:46 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 23:29 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 17:50 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 19:23 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-10 03:19 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 21:36 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-10 10:37 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-10 08:43 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-10 21:42 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-10 16:30 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-10 16:10 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-10 17:38 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-10 17:07 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-10 18:20 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-10 22:09 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-10 22:03 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-10 22:00 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 21:26 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 21:23 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 20:22 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 11:59 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 13:12 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 12:58 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 14:13 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 14:33 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 14:02 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 15:41 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 15:27 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 17:00 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 16:20 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 17:34 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 19:57 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 19:17 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 21:23 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:23 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:12 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 19:21 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:02 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:14 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 22:25 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:37 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 23:16 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 06:58 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 09:09 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 21:41 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-10 10:00 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-10 09:20 -0700
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-10 11:35 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-10 21:55 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-11 08:57 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-11 16:21 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-11 16:16 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-11 17:35 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-11 17:14 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-11 18:44 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-11 17:53 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-11 19:05 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-11 18:14 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-11 19:41 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-11 22:53 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 06:33 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 08:43 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 09:47 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 12:00 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 11:20 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 12:31 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 11:51 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:00 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 12:28 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:36 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 12:47 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:52 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 13:20 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 15:08 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 14:35 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( SUMMATION ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:44 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( SUMMATION ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 15:14 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( SUMMATION ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 13:18 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( SUMMATION ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 15:24 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 13:57 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:01 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 14:12 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:16 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 14:26 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:34 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 15:00 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 14:30 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 12:37 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:51 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 15:17 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 13:19 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 13:44 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 12:48 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 12:41 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 12:18 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 23:16 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider ... Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-09-09 10:21 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 08:34 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-09 15:08 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 17:15 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-09 17:18 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 18:31 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 21:47 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 19:54 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 19:51 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 19:48 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 19:46 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 19:01 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 20:25 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 19:09 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 20:17 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 21:32 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:33 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:20 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 22:30 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:50 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 23:10 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 07:05 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 09:16 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 16:05 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 10:25 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 16:41 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 10:51 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 23:29 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 19:30 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 18:50 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 20:38 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 19:46 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 22:25 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 22:19 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 22:05 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 20:17 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 07:15 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 07:04 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 09:39 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 20:01 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 22:33 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 03:55 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 22:07 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 07:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 15:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 14:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 21:42 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 15:53 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 23:52 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 18:10 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 20:11 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 01:21 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 19:37 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 21:30 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:25 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 02:54 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:14 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:29 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 22:39 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:48 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 23:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 07:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 09:18 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 20:53 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 12:02 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 08:47 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 16:18 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 10:31 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 23:29 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 21:14 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 20:29 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 21:02 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:54 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-09-05 12:34 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 22:22 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 16:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 00:09 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 23:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 06:58 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 17:12 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 11:40 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 12:51 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 20:38 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 22:49 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 22:35 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 21:50 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 23:04 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 22:17 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 23:53 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-30 00:54 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 15:45 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 20:00 -0400
Page 20 of 37 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 37 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-03 11:34 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <9grYI.18964$nR3.6890@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #38729 |
On 9/3/21 10:24 AM, olcott wrote: > On 9/3/2021 9:09 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2021-09-03 07:51, olcott wrote: >> >>> All of the actual Turing Machine base proofs must leave out almost >>> all of the details because their programs would hundreds of thousands >>> of pages. A TM with random access memory would be far less of a >>> nightmare to deal with. >> >> You keep making this absurd claim without actually backing it up. >> >> What details do you imagine are being left out? >> > > The halt deciding code is never shown, it is merely assumed to be > impossible. It isn't 'not shown', the proof is for ANY Halt Decider, including your simulating Halt Decider. It shows that NO MATTER how the decider works, no matter what answer it gives, that answer will be wrong. The only way for the answer to not be wrong, is for their to not be an answer, and that is wrong. When you plug your specific Halt Decider in (after you decide which one you are going to use) it shows that it gives the wrong answer. If you choose your halt decider Hn that doesn't abort, it shows that Hn(Hn^,Hn^) doesn't answer, and thus fails to be a decider. If you choose your halt decider Ha that does abort, it shows that the answer that your Ha(Ha^,Ha^) (which you claim is non-halting) is wrong because the computation Ha^(Ha^) is shown to be halting. > >> And why do you assume a program would be 'hundreds of thousands of >> pages'? I gave you a link to a paper which described a number of UTMs. > > Simply moving from one tape location to another tape location one > megabyte away takes one million steps. > >> In most cases the complete description of the UTM was a single page in >> length. I assume that that is much shorter than the source code for >> your x86 simulator. >> >> André >> > > It is never a complete description of any actual Turing machine it is > only at most a template of a TM description. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-03 10:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <TcqdnZP3P5xQ3K_8nZ2dnUU7-emdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #38743 |
On 9/3/2021 10:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/3/21 10:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/3/2021 9:09 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-09-03 07:51, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> All of the actual Turing Machine base proofs must leave out almost
>>>> all of the details because their programs would hundreds of thousands
>>>> of pages. A TM with random access memory would be far less of a
>>>> nightmare to deal with.
>>>
>>> You keep making this absurd claim without actually backing it up.
>>>
>>> What details do you imagine are being left out?
>>>
>>
>> The halt deciding code is never shown, it is merely assumed to be
>> impossible.
>
> It isn't 'not shown', the proof is for ANY Halt Decider, including your
> simulating Halt Decider.
>
It fails to consider this possibility:
In computability theory, the halting problem is the
problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary
computer program and an input,
whether the simulation of this program must be aborted to
prevent it from running forever.
The above criteria is valid on the basis of the known equivalence
between the direct execution of a computation and its simulation
by a UTM. The same criteria universally works on all inputs allowing
their halting status to be correctly decided.
> It shows that NO MATTER how the decider works, no matter what answer it
> gives, that answer will be wrong.
>
> The only way for the answer to not be wrong, is for their to not be an
> answer, and that is wrong.
>
> When you plug your specific Halt Decider in (after you decide which one
> you are going to use) it shows that it gives the wrong answer.
>
> If you choose your halt decider Hn that doesn't abort, it shows that
> Hn(Hn^,Hn^) doesn't answer, and thus fails to be a decider.
>
> If you choose your halt decider Ha that does abort, it shows that the
> answer that your Ha(Ha^,Ha^) (which you claim is non-halting) is wrong
> because the computation Ha^(Ha^) is shown to be halting.
>
>>
>>> And why do you assume a program would be 'hundreds of thousands of
>>> pages'? I gave you a link to a paper which described a number of UTMs.
>>
>> Simply moving from one tape location to another tape location one
>> megabyte away takes one million steps.
>>
>>> In most cases the complete description of the UTM was a single page in
>>> length. I assume that that is much shorter than the source code for
>>> your x86 simulator.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> It is never a complete description of any actual Turing machine it is
>> only at most a template of a TM description.
>>
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-03 11:51 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <fwrYI.69125$T_8.63158@fx48.iad> |
| In reply to | #38744 |
On 9/3/21 11:39 AM, olcott wrote: > On 9/3/2021 10:34 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 9/3/21 10:24 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 9/3/2021 9:09 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2021-09-03 07:51, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>> All of the actual Turing Machine base proofs must leave out almost >>>>> all of the details because their programs would hundreds of thousands >>>>> of pages. A TM with random access memory would be far less of a >>>>> nightmare to deal with. >>>> >>>> You keep making this absurd claim without actually backing it up. >>>> >>>> What details do you imagine are being left out? >>>> >>> >>> The halt deciding code is never shown, it is merely assumed to be >>> impossible. >> >> It isn't 'not shown', the proof is for ANY Halt Decider, including your >> simulating Halt Decider. >> > > It fails to consider this possibility: > In computability theory, the halting problem is the > problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary > computer program and an input, > > whether the simulation of this program must be aborted to > prevent it from running forever. > > The above criteria is valid on the basis of the known equivalence > between the direct execution of a computation and its simulation > by a UTM. The same criteria universally works on all inputs allowing > their halting status to be correctly decided. Right, IF by 'Simulation of this program ust be aborted' means that THIS EXACT instance of the simulation, if run be a REAL UTM, would go forever, then this is a true statement. And by this criteria, <H^> <H^> is the representation of a Halting Computation, because putting that into a UTM will show that it halts. YOUR interpretation, which examines changing the decider, and all copies of it, is incorrect. H is NOT a UTM, so the fact that its simulation is abort before it reaches a final halting state doesn't prove anything. > >> It shows that NO MATTER how the decider works, no matter what answer it >> gives, that answer will be wrong. >> >> The only way for the answer to not be wrong, is for their to not be an >> answer, and that is wrong. >> >> When you plug your specific Halt Decider in (after you decide which one >> you are going to use) it shows that it gives the wrong answer. >> >> If you choose your halt decider Hn that doesn't abort, it shows that >> Hn(Hn^,Hn^) doesn't answer, and thus fails to be a decider. >> >> If you choose your halt decider Ha that does abort, it shows that the >> answer that your Ha(Ha^,Ha^) (which you claim is non-halting) is wrong >> because the computation Ha^(Ha^) is shown to be halting. >> >>> >>>> And why do you assume a program would be 'hundreds of thousands of >>>> pages'? I gave you a link to a paper which described a number of UTMs. >>> >>> Simply moving from one tape location to another tape location one >>> megabyte away takes one million steps. >>> >>>> In most cases the complete description of the UTM was a single page in >>>> length. I assume that that is much shorter than the source code for >>>> your x86 simulator. >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>> >>> It is never a complete description of any actual Turing machine it is >>> only at most a template of a TM description. >>> >> > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-03 09:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <0dGdnTB0S9Y8sa_8nZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #38721 |
On 9/3/2021 5:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 9/3/21 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 9/2/2021 10:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 9/2/21 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 9/2/2021 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 9/2/21 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 9:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 7:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone that understands what I am saying can tell that their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero actual rebuttals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that an empty set? Does anyone in the world understand and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with you? Someone at the grocery store maybe?
>>>>>>>>>>> Well? Does anyone in the world understand and agree with you?
>>>>>>>>>>> Will you
>>>>>>>>>>> avoid every question put to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> None of the rebuttals ever directly addressed any of the points
>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>>> made. They always changed the subject to another different
>>>>>>>>>>>> unrelated
>>>>>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>>> Flat-out lie. You made this point crucial point on 12th Aug:
>>>>>>>>>>> "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a string that encodes a halting
>>>>>>>>>>> computation."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ // You pay attention to this
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ // You utterly ignore this
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Liar. I have addressed this on many occasions. Here, yet
>>>>>>>>> again, is
>>>>>>>>> what I have to say about it. You show us that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊦
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> since ⟨Ĥ1⟩ = ⟨Ĥ2⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩ we see that H (embedded as it is at Ĥ.qx)
>>>>>>>>> rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. How you think I knew that? I don't
>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>> this stuff up, you do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The simple fact that you ignore is that the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>> never halts unless Ĥ.qx aborts its simulation of this input.
>>>>>>>> You have dodged this EVER SINCE 2017-03-11 (4.5 years ago)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Liar. Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I say that I have a brown dog is it not a
>>>>>> rebuttal to say that I don't have a white cat.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts.
>>>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts.
>>>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts.
>>>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You have been dishonestly denying this for 4.5 years.
>>>>>> You have been dishonestly denying this for 4.5 years.
>>>>>> You have been dishonestly denying this for 4.5 years.
>>>>>> You have been dishonestly denying this for 4.5 years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> INPUTS DON'T HALT,
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any input that never halts unless its simulation is aborted is an input
>>>> that never halts.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bad Terminology. Inputs themselves don't halt. They only represent
>>> computations that might be halting or not.
>>>
>>
>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the
>> problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary
>> computer program and an input, whether the program will
>> finish running, or continue to run forever.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>
> Right. Note, it says whether 'The Program' not 'The Input' will halt or
> not.
>
> Programs will Halt, not inputs. Inputs are just the desciption used to
> specify the program.
>
>>
>> To bypass the pathology of pathological inputs:
>
> FAIL. You don't get to change the definition because you don't like the
> problems it creates.
>
>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the
>> problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary
>> computer program and an input,
>>
>> whether the simulation of this input must be aborted to
>> prevent it from running forever.
>
> Ok, whether the simulation of THIS input (not some other simulation,
> THIS one).
>
>>
>> The above criteria is valid on the basis of the known equivalence
>> between the direct execution of a computation and its simulation by a
>> UTM. The same criteria universally works on all inputs.
>
> And by that, the question is to decide if H^1(<H^2> is Halting or not,
> do we need to abort the simulation of H^1(<H^2>) or will it stop on its
> own if simulated.
>
> Simulating this machine it will halt because H will abort a different
> simulation, the simulation of H^2(<H^3>), call it non-halting and thus
> H^1 will halt.
>
> FAIL.
>
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ // is equivalent to int main() { P(P); }
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ // is equivalent to H(P,P)
The H(P,P) C/x86 code makes a perfect and complete analogy to the
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ Turing machine code. If you don't understand the x86
language well enough you won't be able to ever understand what I am saying.
All of the actual Turing Machine base proofs must leave out almost all
of the details because their programs would hundreds of thousands of
pages. A TM with random access memory would be far less of a nightmare
to deal with.
> The fact that H will (incorrectly) abort the simulation doesn't matter,
> H isn't a UTM, so the fact that it aborted the program in a
> not-yet-halted state doesn't show either Halting or non-halting.
>
> The ACTUAL UTM simulation of that input shows that it WILL Halt.
>
> You seem to confuse aborting a simulation before it finishes with a pure
> simulation never reaching a halting state.
>
> If you have a maze that may have a prize in it, you can't just search
> for a while and then give up and declare there is no prize, you need to
> continue until you either find the prize or can show you have atually
> searched everywhere.
>
>>
>>
>>> Error in Kind.
>>>
>>> Sort of like saying that a loud speaker can lie. The loud speaker just
>>> reproduces the signal sent to it, so if the words that came out of the
>>> loud speaker were wrong, it isn't the loud speaker that actually lied,
>>> it is the signal sent to it, or the source of the signal that is the
>>> source of the lie.
>>>
>>> The input doesn't do ANYTHING on its own. Halting a a behavior of a
>>> Computation, not just the representation of it.
>>>
>>>
>>> If the simulation is REALLY a Pure Simulation (not one that is aborted).
>>>
>>> A pure simulaiton of <H^1> <H^2> does Halt, it does EXACTLY what the top
>>> level H^(<H^>) does.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-03 12:01 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <dFrYI.14091$g81.9283@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #38726 |
On 9/3/21 10:09 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 9/3/2021 5:32 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 9/3/21 12:09 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 9/2/2021 10:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 9/2/21 11:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 9/2/2021 10:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/2/21 10:55 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 9:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 7:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone that understands what I am saying can tell that their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero actual rebuttals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that an empty set? Does anyone in the world understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with you? Someone at the grocery store maybe?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well? Does anyone in the world understand and agree with you?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Will you
>>>>>>>>>>>> avoid every question put to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> None of the rebuttals ever directly addressed any of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> points
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> made. They always changed the subject to another different
>>>>>>>>>>>>> unrelated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Flat-out lie. You made this point crucial point on 12th Aug:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a string that encodes a halting
>>>>>>>>>>>> computation."
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ // You pay attention to this
>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ // You utterly ignore this
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Liar. I have addressed this on many occasions. Here, yet
>>>>>>>>>> again, is
>>>>>>>>>> what I have to say about it. You show us that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊦
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> since ⟨Ĥ1⟩ = ⟨Ĥ2⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩ we see that H (embedded as it is at Ĥ.qx)
>>>>>>>>>> rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. How you think I knew that? I don't
>>>>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>>>>> this stuff up, you do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The simple fact that you ignore is that the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩
>>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>>> never halts unless Ĥ.qx aborts its simulation of this input.
>>>>>>>>> You have dodged this EVER SINCE 2017-03-11 (4.5 years ago)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Liar. Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When I say that I have a brown dog is it not a
>>>>>>> rebuttal to say that I don't have a white cat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts.
>>>>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts.
>>>>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts.
>>>>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You have been dishonestly denying this for 4.5 years.
>>>>>>> You have been dishonestly denying this for 4.5 years.
>>>>>>> You have been dishonestly denying this for 4.5 years.
>>>>>>> You have been dishonestly denying this for 4.5 years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> INPUTS DON'T HALT,
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Any input that never halts unless its simulation is aborted is an
>>>>> input
>>>>> that never halts.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bad Terminology. Inputs themselves don't halt. They only represent
>>>> computations that might be halting or not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the
>>> problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary
>>> computer program and an input, whether the program will
>>> finish running, or continue to run forever.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
>>
>> Right. Note, it says whether 'The Program' not 'The Input' will halt or
>> not.
>>
>> Programs will Halt, not inputs. Inputs are just the desciption used to
>> specify the program.
>>
>>>
>>> To bypass the pathology of pathological inputs:
>>
>> FAIL. You don't get to change the definition because you don't like the
>> problems it creates.
>>
>>> In computability theory, the halting problem is the
>>> problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary
>>> computer program and an input,
>>>
>>> whether the simulation of this input must be aborted to
>>> prevent it from running forever.
>>
>> Ok, whether the simulation of THIS input (not some other simulation,
>> THIS one).
>>
>>>
>>> The above criteria is valid on the basis of the known equivalence
>>> between the direct execution of a computation and its simulation by a
>>> UTM. The same criteria universally works on all inputs.
>>
>> And by that, the question is to decide if H^1(<H^2> is Halting or not,
>> do we need to abort the simulation of H^1(<H^2>) or will it stop on its
>> own if simulated.
>>
>> Simulating this machine it will halt because H will abort a different
>> simulation, the simulation of H^2(<H^3>), call it non-halting and thus
>> H^1 will halt.
>>
>> FAIL.
>>
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ // is equivalent to int main() { P(P); }
> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ // is equivalent to H(P,P)
>
> The H(P,P) C/x86 code makes a perfect and complete analogy to the
> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ Turing machine code. If you don't understand the x86
> language well enough you won't be able to ever understand what I am saying.
Right, H^.q0 <H^> is H^(<H^>)
H^.qx <H^1> <H^2> is H(<H^>, <H^2>) which is a different computation,
but one that is to decide on the machine represented by <H^1> <H^2>
which is H^1(<H^2>) which is the same machine as H^(<H^>) since the
copies are exact. Thus H, to be correct, needs to give the answer that
matches the behavior of H^(<H^>) which is halting.
>
> All of the actual Turing Machine base proofs must leave out almost all
> of the details because their programs would hundreds of thousands of
> pages. A TM with random access memory would be far less of a nightmare
> to deal with.
Turing Machines don't have random access memory because then they
wouldn't be Turing Machines. You don't seem to understand that one
essential characteristic of Turing Machines is that ANY program
represented by a Turing Machine is by necessity a Computation.
The problem with a machine with 'Random Access' memory is that this
means that for any program, the WHOLE state of the memory is its input,
and thus it becomes impossible to simple chain computations, as the
state from the outer computation leaks into the inner.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-03 15:58 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <87sfylu2nb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #38708 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 9/2/2021 9:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 9/2/2021 8:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 7:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anyone that understands what I am saying can tell that their have been >>>>>>>>> zero actual rebuttals. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is that an empty set? Does anyone in the world understand and agree >>>>>>>> with you? Someone at the grocery store maybe? >>>>>> Well? Does anyone in the world understand and agree with you? Will you >>>>>> avoid every question put to you? >>>>>> >>>>>>> None of the rebuttals ever directly addressed any of the points that I >>>>>>> made. They always changed the subject to another different unrelated >>>>>>> point. >>>>>> Flat-out lie. You made this point crucial point on 12th Aug: >>>>>> "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a string that encodes a halting computation." >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ // You pay attention to this >>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ // You utterly ignore this >>>> >>>> Liar. I have addressed this on many occasions. Here, yet again, is >>>> what I have to say about it. You show us that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊦ Ĥ.qn and >>>> since ⟨Ĥ1⟩ = ⟨Ĥ2⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩ we see that H (embedded as it is at Ĥ.qx) >>>> rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. How you think I knew that? I don't make >>>> this stuff up, you do. >>> >>> The simple fact that you ignore is that the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ >>> never halts unless Ĥ.qx aborts its simulation of this input. >>> You have dodged this EVER SINCE 2017-03-11 (4.5 years ago) >> Liar. Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn. > > The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-03 10:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <MqudnYAbzJptpa_8nZ2dnUU78eednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #38735 |
On 9/3/2021 9:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 9/2/2021 9:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 9/2/2021 8:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 7:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anyone that understands what I am saying can tell that their have been >>>>>>>>>> zero actual rebuttals. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is that an empty set? Does anyone in the world understand and agree >>>>>>>>> with you? Someone at the grocery store maybe? >>>>>>> Well? Does anyone in the world understand and agree with you? Will you >>>>>>> avoid every question put to you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> None of the rebuttals ever directly addressed any of the points that I >>>>>>>> made. They always changed the subject to another different unrelated >>>>>>>> point. >>>>>>> Flat-out lie. You made this point crucial point on 12th Aug: >>>>>>> "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a string that encodes a halting computation." >>>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ // You pay attention to this >>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ // You utterly ignore this >>>>> >>>>> Liar. I have addressed this on many occasions. Here, yet again, is >>>>> what I have to say about it. You show us that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊦ Ĥ.qn and >>>>> since ⟨Ĥ1⟩ = ⟨Ĥ2⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩ we see that H (embedded as it is at Ĥ.qx) >>>>> rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. How you think I knew that? I don't make >>>>> this stuff up, you do. >>>> >>>> The simple fact that you ignore is that the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ >>>> never halts unless Ĥ.qx aborts its simulation of this input. >>>> You have dodged this EVER SINCE 2017-03-11 (4.5 years ago) >>> Liar. Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn. >> >> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. > > What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩? > The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. And you know that this is true. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-03 16:18 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <87h7f1u1pd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #38737 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 9/3/2021 9:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. >> >> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩? > > The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. Question avoided 8 times now: Message-ID: <87pmu4e2kx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Message-ID: <87o89ay9pb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Message-ID: <877dfywljd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Message-ID: <871r66wjrz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Message-ID: <87pmtqv0q1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Message-ID: <87k0jyv0hd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Message-ID: <87v93hu2nl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Message-ID: <87sfylu2nb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Can we get into double figures? What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-03 12:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <CGrYI.14092$g81.11885@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #38737 |
On 9/3/21 11:02 AM, olcott wrote: > On 9/3/2021 9:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 9/2/2021 9:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 7:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Anyone that understands what I am saying can tell that their >>>>>>>>>>> have been >>>>>>>>>>> zero actual rebuttals. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is that an empty set? Does anyone in the world understand and >>>>>>>>>> agree >>>>>>>>>> with you? Someone at the grocery store maybe? >>>>>>>> Well? Does anyone in the world understand and agree with you? >>>>>>>> Will you >>>>>>>> avoid every question put to you? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> None of the rebuttals ever directly addressed any of the points >>>>>>>>> that I >>>>>>>>> made. They always changed the subject to another different >>>>>>>>> unrelated >>>>>>>>> point. >>>>>>>> Flat-out lie. You made this point crucial point on 12th Aug: >>>>>>>> "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a string that encodes a halting computation." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ // You pay attention to this >>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ // You utterly ignore this >>>>>> >>>>>> Liar. I have addressed this on many occasions. Here, yet again, is >>>>>> what I have to say about it. You show us that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊦ >>>>>> Ĥ.qn and >>>>>> since ⟨Ĥ1⟩ = ⟨Ĥ2⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩ we see that H (embedded as it is at Ĥ.qx) >>>>>> rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. How you think I knew that? I don't make >>>>>> this stuff up, you do. >>>>> >>>>> The simple fact that you ignore is that the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ >>>>> never halts unless Ĥ.qx aborts its simulation of this input. >>>>> You have dodged this EVER SINCE 2017-03-11 (4.5 years ago) >>>> Liar. Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn. >>> >>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. >> >> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩? >> > > The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. > The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. > The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. > > And you know that this is true. > > INPUTS DON'T HALT. MACHINES DO. H^1(<H^2>) will Halt, so <H^1> <H^2> represents a Halting Computation. The fact that H doesn't simulate it to that point doesn't change the behavior of that machine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-02 21:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <cbmdnRjYj8DqGKz8nZ2dnUU7-aPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #38696 |
On 9/2/2021 8:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 9/2/2021 8:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 9/2/2021 7:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>>>> Anyone that understands what I am saying can tell that their have been >>>>>> zero actual rebuttals. >>>>> >>>>> Is that an empty set? Does anyone in the world understand and agree >>>>> with you? Someone at the grocery store maybe? >>> Well? Does anyone in the world understand and agree with you? Will you >>> avoid every question put to you? >>> >>>> None of the rebuttals ever directly addressed any of the points that I >>>> made. They always changed the subject to another different unrelated >>>> point. >>> Flat-out lie. You made this point crucial point on 12th Aug: >>> "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a string that encodes a halting computation." >> >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ // You pay attention to this >> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ // You utterly ignore this > > Liar. I have addressed this on many occasions. Here, yet again, is > what I have to say about it. You show us that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊦ Ĥ.qn and > since ⟨Ĥ1⟩ = ⟨Ĥ2⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩ we see that H (embedded as it is at Ĥ.qx) > rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. How you think I knew that? I don't make > this stuff up, you do. The simple fact that you ignore is that the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts unless Ĥ.qx aborts its simulation of this input. You have dodged this EVER SINCE 2017-03-11 (4.5 years ago) On 3/11/2017 3:13 PM, peteolcott wrote: > http://LiarParadox.org/HP_Infinite_Recursion.pdf > > As this page 319 of An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata > by Peter Linz 1990 indicates > > From H' we construct another Turing machine H-Hat. This new machine takes as input Wm, copies it then behaves exactly like H'. > > q0 Wm |-* H-Hat q0 Wm Wm... > > Page 320 indicates that we apply H-Hat to itself as input. > > The problem is that every H-Hat needs a pair of inputs. > > H-Hat takes an H-Hat as input and copies it so that it > can analyze how its input H-hat would analyze the copy > of H-Hat that it just made. > > The input H-Hat would have to copy its own input H-Hat > so that it can analyze what its own input H-Hat would > do on its own input, on and on forever... > > Copyright 2016 and 2017 Pete Olcott. > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-03 03:47 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <87k0jyv0hd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #38698 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 9/2/2021 8:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 9/2/2021 8:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 9/2/2021 7:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>>>> Anyone that understands what I am saying can tell that their have been >>>>>>> zero actual rebuttals. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is that an empty set? Does anyone in the world understand and agree >>>>>> with you? Someone at the grocery store maybe? >>>> Well? Does anyone in the world understand and agree with you? Will you >>>> avoid every question put to you? >>>> >>>>> None of the rebuttals ever directly addressed any of the points that I >>>>> made. They always changed the subject to another different unrelated >>>>> point. >>>> Flat-out lie. You made this point crucial point on 12th Aug: >>>> "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a string that encodes a halting computation." >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ // You pay attention to this >>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ // You utterly ignore this >> >> Liar. I have addressed this on many occasions. Here, yet again, is >> what I have to say about it. You show us that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊦ Ĥ.qn and >> since ⟨Ĥ1⟩ = ⟨Ĥ2⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩ we see that H (embedded as it is at Ĥ.qx) >> rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. How you think I knew that? I don't make >> this stuff up, you do. > > The simple fact that you ignore is that the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ > never halts unless Ĥ.qx aborts its simulation of this input. > You have dodged this EVER SINCE 2017-03-11 (4.5 years ago) It's a lie no matter how many time you say it. First, here's why you are wrong about ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ transitions to Ĥ.qn. I.e. H, embedded Ĥ at qx, rejects the string pair ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩, and since ⟨Ĥ1⟩ = ⟨Ĥ2⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩, it also rejects the string pair ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ which encodes the halting computation H(⟨Ĥ⟩). Second, here, again, is the question you simply can't answer: What is the string pair that encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩? Answer this question or hang your head in shame. You know the answer but you can't bring yourself to admit it. > On 3/11/2017 3:13 PM, peteolcott wrote: >> http://LiarParadox.org/HP_Infinite_Recursion.pdf >> >> As this page 319 of An Introduction to Formal Languages and Automata >> by Peter Linz 1990 indicates >> >> From H' we construct another Turing machine H-Hat. This new machine takes as input Wm, copies it then behaves exactly like H'. >> >> q0 Wm |-* H-Hat q0 Wm Wm... >> >> Page 320 indicates that we apply H-Hat to itself as input. >> >> The problem is that every H-Hat needs a pair of inputs. >> >> H-Hat takes an H-Hat as input and copies it so that it >> can analyze how its input H-hat would analyze the copy >> of H-Hat that it just made. >> >> The input H-Hat would have to copy its own input H-Hat >> so that it can analyze what its own input H-Hat would >> do on its own input, on and on forever... Thirdly, for people who know how to use Usenet, here's a link to my reply so they can see the discussion in context. What you wrote was wrong then, and it's still wrong now. Message-ID: <87o9x6wxby.fsf@bsb.me.uk> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-02 21:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <yLSdnS1Po45HE6z8nZ2dnUU7-WGdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #38704 |
On 9/2/2021 9:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 9/2/2021 8:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 9/2/2021 8:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/2/2021 7:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Anyone that understands what I am saying can tell that their have been >>>>>>>> zero actual rebuttals. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is that an empty set? Does anyone in the world understand and agree >>>>>>> with you? Someone at the grocery store maybe? >>>>> Well? Does anyone in the world understand and agree with you? Will you >>>>> avoid every question put to you? >>>>> >>>>>> None of the rebuttals ever directly addressed any of the points that I >>>>>> made. They always changed the subject to another different unrelated >>>>>> point. >>>>> Flat-out lie. You made this point crucial point on 12th Aug: >>>>> "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a string that encodes a halting computation." >>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ // You pay attention to this >>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ // You utterly ignore this >>> >>> Liar. I have addressed this on many occasions. Here, yet again, is >>> what I have to say about it. You show us that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊦ Ĥ.qn and >>> since ⟨Ĥ1⟩ = ⟨Ĥ2⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩ we see that H (embedded as it is at Ĥ.qx) >>> rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. How you think I knew that? I don't make >>> this stuff up, you do. >> >> The simple fact that you ignore is that the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ >> never halts unless Ĥ.qx aborts its simulation of this input. >> You have dodged this EVER SINCE 2017-03-11 (4.5 years ago) > > It's a lie no matter how many time you say it. The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. You have been dishonestly denying this for 4.5 years. You have been dishonestly denying this for 4.5 years. You have been dishonestly denying this for 4.5 years. You have been dishonestly denying this for 4.5 years. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-02 22:29 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <sgs8be$7dh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #38709 |
On 9/2/2021 8:56 PM, olcott wrote: > On 9/2/2021 9:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> It's a lie no matter how many time you say it. > The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. > The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. > The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. > The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. This simply means that your simulator is broke. (Should I repeat it 4 times to match your infantile tirade?) It's unfortunate that you should pursue this path when you are such a poor coder. (Very poor from recent evidence.) > You have been dishonestly denying this for 4.5 years. > You have been dishonestly denying this for 4.5 years. > You have been dishonestly denying this for 4.5 years. > You have been dishonestly denying this for 4.5 years. The only untruthful one is you. (Should I repeat it 4 times to match your infantile tirade?) By the way, how long can you go and not answer Ben's trivia question: "What is the string pair that encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩?" Many of us are fairly certain that you don't know the answer, are afraid there is one, and will look like a buffoon when it's revealed. If your religion has strengthened your character to the point of modest ethics and honesty, it's time you ask for help, learn something, and grow a little bit before it's too late. And of course, apologize to all those nice folks you insult on a daily basis even though they try to help you and improve your character through honesty. Work with them. -- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-03 15:58 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <87v93hu2nl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #38709 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 9/2/2021 9:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 9/2/2021 8:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 7:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anyone that understands what I am saying can tell that their have been >>>>>>>>> zero actual rebuttals. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is that an empty set? Does anyone in the world understand and agree >>>>>>>> with you? Someone at the grocery store maybe? >>>>>> Well? Does anyone in the world understand and agree with you? Will you >>>>>> avoid every question put to you? >>>>>> >>>>>>> None of the rebuttals ever directly addressed any of the points that I >>>>>>> made. They always changed the subject to another different unrelated >>>>>>> point. >>>>>> Flat-out lie. You made this point crucial point on 12th Aug: >>>>>> "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a string that encodes a halting computation." >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ // You pay attention to this >>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ // You utterly ignore this >>>> >>>> Liar. I have addressed this on many occasions. Here, yet again, is >>>> what I have to say about it. You show us that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊦ Ĥ.qn and >>>> since ⟨Ĥ1⟩ = ⟨Ĥ2⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩ we see that H (embedded as it is at Ĥ.qx) >>>> rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. How you think I knew that? I don't make >>>> this stuff up, you do. >>> >>> The simple fact that you ignore is that the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ >>> never halts unless Ĥ.qx aborts its simulation of this input. >>> You have dodged this EVER SINCE 2017-03-11 (4.5 years ago) >> It's a lie no matter how many time you say it. > The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-03 10:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <MqudnYEbzJpfpa_8nZ2dnUU78eednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #38734 |
On 9/3/2021 9:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 9/2/2021 9:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 9/2/2021 8:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 7:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Anyone that understands what I am saying can tell that their have been >>>>>>>>>> zero actual rebuttals. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Is that an empty set? Does anyone in the world understand and agree >>>>>>>>> with you? Someone at the grocery store maybe? >>>>>>> Well? Does anyone in the world understand and agree with you? Will you >>>>>>> avoid every question put to you? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> None of the rebuttals ever directly addressed any of the points that I >>>>>>>> made. They always changed the subject to another different unrelated >>>>>>>> point. >>>>>>> Flat-out lie. You made this point crucial point on 12th Aug: >>>>>>> "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a string that encodes a halting computation." >>>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ // You pay attention to this >>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ // You utterly ignore this >>>>> >>>>> Liar. I have addressed this on many occasions. Here, yet again, is >>>>> what I have to say about it. You show us that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊦ Ĥ.qn and >>>>> since ⟨Ĥ1⟩ = ⟨Ĥ2⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩ we see that H (embedded as it is at Ĥ.qx) >>>>> rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. How you think I knew that? I don't make >>>>> this stuff up, you do. >>>> >>>> The simple fact that you ignore is that the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ >>>> never halts unless Ĥ.qx aborts its simulation of this input. >>>> You have dodged this EVER SINCE 2017-03-11 (4.5 years ago) >>> It's a lie no matter how many time you say it. >> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. > > What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩? > The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. And you know this is true. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-03 16:16 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <87mtotu1ta.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #38736 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 9/3/2021 9:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 9/2/2021 9:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 7:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Anyone that understands what I am saying can tell that their have been >>>>>>>>>>> zero actual rebuttals. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Is that an empty set? Does anyone in the world understand and agree >>>>>>>>>> with you? Someone at the grocery store maybe? >>>>>>>> Well? Does anyone in the world understand and agree with you? Will you >>>>>>>> avoid every question put to you? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> None of the rebuttals ever directly addressed any of the points that I >>>>>>>>> made. They always changed the subject to another different unrelated >>>>>>>>> point. >>>>>>>> Flat-out lie. You made this point crucial point on 12th Aug: >>>>>>>> "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a string that encodes a halting computation." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ // You pay attention to this >>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ // You utterly ignore this >>>>>> >>>>>> Liar. I have addressed this on many occasions. Here, yet again, is >>>>>> what I have to say about it. You show us that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊦ Ĥ.qn and >>>>>> since ⟨Ĥ1⟩ = ⟨Ĥ2⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩ we see that H (embedded as it is at Ĥ.qx) >>>>>> rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. How you think I knew that? I don't make >>>>>> this stuff up, you do. >>>>> >>>>> The simple fact that you ignore is that the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ >>>>> never halts unless Ĥ.qx aborts its simulation of this input. >>>>> You have dodged this EVER SINCE 2017-03-11 (4.5 years ago) >>>> It's a lie no matter how many time you say it. >>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. >> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩? > > The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. It turns out you have ducked my question at least six times previously /without/ counting any other people who has asked! This makes 7: Message-ID: <87pmu4e2kx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Message-ID: <87o89ay9pb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Message-ID: <877dfywljd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Message-ID: <871r66wjrz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Message-ID: <87pmtqv0q1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Message-ID: <87k0jyv0hd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> Message-ID: <87v93hu2nl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-03 10:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <CrSdnSjNk7g8oq_8nZ2dnUU7-f2dnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #38739 |
On 9/3/2021 10:16 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 9/3/2021 9:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 9/2/2021 9:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 7:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone that understands what I am saying can tell that their have been >>>>>>>>>>>> zero actual rebuttals. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Is that an empty set? Does anyone in the world understand and agree >>>>>>>>>>> with you? Someone at the grocery store maybe? >>>>>>>>> Well? Does anyone in the world understand and agree with you? Will you >>>>>>>>> avoid every question put to you? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> None of the rebuttals ever directly addressed any of the points that I >>>>>>>>>> made. They always changed the subject to another different unrelated >>>>>>>>>> point. >>>>>>>>> Flat-out lie. You made this point crucial point on 12th Aug: >>>>>>>>> "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a string that encodes a halting computation." >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ // You pay attention to this >>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ // You utterly ignore this >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Liar. I have addressed this on many occasions. Here, yet again, is >>>>>>> what I have to say about it. You show us that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊦ Ĥ.qn and >>>>>>> since ⟨Ĥ1⟩ = ⟨Ĥ2⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩ we see that H (embedded as it is at Ĥ.qx) >>>>>>> rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. How you think I knew that? I don't make >>>>>>> this stuff up, you do. >>>>>> >>>>>> The simple fact that you ignore is that the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ >>>>>> never halts unless Ĥ.qx aborts its simulation of this input. >>>>>> You have dodged this EVER SINCE 2017-03-11 (4.5 years ago) >>>>> It's a lie no matter how many time you say it. >>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. >>> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩? >> >> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. > > It turns out you have ducked my question at least six times previously > /without/ counting any other people who has asked! This makes 7: > I will quit dodging your dishonest dodge as soon as you acknowledge that The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. > Message-ID: <87pmu4e2kx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> > Message-ID: <87o89ay9pb.fsf@bsb.me.uk> > Message-ID: <877dfywljd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> > Message-ID: <871r66wjrz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> > Message-ID: <87pmtqv0q1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> > Message-ID: <87k0jyv0hd.fsf@bsb.me.uk> > Message-ID: <87v93hu2nl.fsf@bsb.me.uk> > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-03 16:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <87bl59u095.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #38742 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 9/3/2021 10:16 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 9/3/2021 9:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 9/2/2021 9:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 7:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone that understands what I am saying can tell that their have been >>>>>>>>>>>>> zero actual rebuttals. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is that an empty set? Does anyone in the world understand and agree >>>>>>>>>>>> with you? Someone at the grocery store maybe? >>>>>>>>>> Well? Does anyone in the world understand and agree with you? Will you >>>>>>>>>> avoid every question put to you? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> None of the rebuttals ever directly addressed any of the points that I >>>>>>>>>>> made. They always changed the subject to another different unrelated >>>>>>>>>>> point. >>>>>>>>>> Flat-out lie. You made this point crucial point on 12th Aug: >>>>>>>>>> "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a string that encodes a halting computation." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ // You pay attention to this >>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ // You utterly ignore this >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Liar. I have addressed this on many occasions. Here, yet again, is >>>>>>>> what I have to say about it. You show us that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊦ Ĥ.qn and >>>>>>>> since ⟨Ĥ1⟩ = ⟨Ĥ2⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩ we see that H (embedded as it is at Ĥ.qx) >>>>>>>> rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. How you think I knew that? I don't make >>>>>>>> this stuff up, you do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The simple fact that you ignore is that the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ >>>>>>> never halts unless Ĥ.qx aborts its simulation of this input. >>>>>>> You have dodged this EVER SINCE 2017-03-11 (4.5 years ago) >>>>>> It's a lie no matter how many time you say it. >>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. >>>> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩? >>> >>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. >> It turns out you have ducked my question at least six times previously >> /without/ counting any other people who has asked! This makes 7: >> > > I will quit dodging your dishonest dodge as soon as you acknowledge that > The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. Classic crank! You'll answer when I accept a garbled falsehood, an obligation you are guaranteed to never have to meet! Anyway, you've dodged the question 9 times now (8 was in another thread). Here's you chance to go for ten times: ------------------------------------------------------------ What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩? ------------------------------------------------------------ For the record, here (again) is why you are wrong: inputs don't halt or not halt, computations do that. You do show a computation, though (Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩), but that computation halts (in state Ĥ.qn). And you do also show an input, the string ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩, whose "halting" could, I suppose, be taken to mean what happens were it simulated. But a UTM would halt given that input, so I can't attribute any correct meaning to your garbled statement. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-03 14:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <1YydnWBJ4bYB4K_8nZ2dnUU7-XOdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #38748 |
On 9/3/2021 10:50 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 9/3/2021 10:16 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 9/3/2021 9:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 9:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 7:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone that understands what I am saying can tell that their have been
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero actual rebuttals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that an empty set? Does anyone in the world understand and agree
>>>>>>>>>>>>> with you? Someone at the grocery store maybe?
>>>>>>>>>>> Well? Does anyone in the world understand and agree with you? Will you
>>>>>>>>>>> avoid every question put to you?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> None of the rebuttals ever directly addressed any of the points that I
>>>>>>>>>>>> made. They always changed the subject to another different unrelated
>>>>>>>>>>>> point.
>>>>>>>>>>> Flat-out lie. You made this point crucial point on 12th Aug:
>>>>>>>>>>> "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a string that encodes a halting computation."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ // You pay attention to this
>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ // You utterly ignore this
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Liar. I have addressed this on many occasions. Here, yet again, is
>>>>>>>>> what I have to say about it. You show us that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ ⊦ Ĥ.qn and
>>>>>>>>> since ⟨Ĥ1⟩ = ⟨Ĥ2⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩ we see that H (embedded as it is at Ĥ.qx)
>>>>>>>>> rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. How you think I knew that? I don't make
>>>>>>>>> this stuff up, you do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The simple fact that you ignore is that the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩
>>>>>>>> never halts unless Ĥ.qx aborts its simulation of this input.
>>>>>>>> You have dodged this EVER SINCE 2017-03-11 (4.5 years ago)
>>>>>>> It's a lie no matter how many time you say it.
>>>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts.
>>>>> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩?
>>>>
>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts.
>>> It turns out you have ducked my question at least six times previously
>>> /without/ counting any other people who has asked! This makes 7:
>>>
>>
>> I will quit dodging your dishonest dodge as soon as you acknowledge that
>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts.
>
> Classic crank! You'll answer when I accept a garbled falsehood, an
> obligation you are guaranteed to never have to meet!
>
> Anyway, you've dodged the question 9 times now (8 was in another
> thread). Here's you chance to go for ten times:
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩?
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> For the record, here (again) is why you are wrong: inputs don't halt or
> not halt, computations do that. You do show a computation, though (Ĥ.qx
> ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩), but that computation halts (in state Ĥ.qn). And you do also
> show an input, the string ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩, whose "halting" could, I suppose,
> be taken to mean what happens were it simulated. But a UTM would halt
> given that input, so I can't attribute any correct meaning to your
> garbled statement.
>
Richard's critique of my use of language was apt so I adapted it to this:
In computability theory, the halting problem is the
problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary
computer program and an input,
whether the simulation of this program must be aborted to
prevent it from running forever.
The above criteria is valid on the basis of the known equivalence
between the direct execution of a computation and its simulation
by a UTM.
The same criteria universally works on all inputs (pathological or not)
allowing their halting status to be correctly decided.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-03 16:34 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] |
| Message-ID | <BFvYI.44423$QzOf.40772@fx17.iad> |
| In reply to | #38754 |
On 9/3/21 3:55 PM, olcott wrote: > On 9/3/2021 10:50 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 9/3/2021 10:16 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 9/3/2021 9:58 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 9:47 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 8:05 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/2/2021 7:27 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyone that understands what I am saying can tell that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their have been >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero actual rebuttals. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that an empty set? Does anyone in the world understand >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and agree >>>>>>>>>>>>>> with you? Someone at the grocery store maybe? >>>>>>>>>>>> Well? Does anyone in the world understand and agree with >>>>>>>>>>>> you? Will you >>>>>>>>>>>> avoid every question put to you? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> None of the rebuttals ever directly addressed any of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> points that I >>>>>>>>>>>>> made. They always changed the subject to another different >>>>>>>>>>>>> unrelated >>>>>>>>>>>>> point. >>>>>>>>>>>> Flat-out lie. You made this point crucial point on 12th Aug: >>>>>>>>>>>> "⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ is not a string that encodes a halting >>>>>>>>>>>> computation." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ1⟩ // You pay attention to this >>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ // You utterly ignore this >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Liar. I have addressed this on many occasions. Here, yet >>>>>>>>>> again, is >>>>>>>>>> what I have to say about it. You show us that Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ >>>>>>>>>> ⊦ Ĥ.qn and >>>>>>>>>> since ⟨Ĥ1⟩ = ⟨Ĥ2⟩ = ⟨Ĥ⟩ we see that H (embedded as it is at Ĥ.qx) >>>>>>>>>> rejects the string ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩. How you think I knew that? I >>>>>>>>>> don't make >>>>>>>>>> this stuff up, you do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The simple fact that you ignore is that the input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ >>>>>>>>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ >>>>>>>>> never halts unless Ĥ.qx aborts its simulation of this input. >>>>>>>>> You have dodged this EVER SINCE 2017-03-11 (4.5 years ago) >>>>>>>> It's a lie no matter how many time you say it. >>>>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. >>>>>> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩? >>>>> >>>>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. >>>> It turns out you have ducked my question at least six times previously >>>> /without/ counting any other people who has asked! This makes 7: >>>> >>> >>> I will quit dodging your dishonest dodge as soon as you acknowledge that >>> The input to Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩ never halts. >> >> Classic crank! You'll answer when I accept a garbled falsehood, an >> obligation you are guaranteed to never have to meet! >> >> Anyway, you've dodged the question 9 times now (8 was in another >> thread). Here's you chance to go for ten times: >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> What string encodes the halting computation of Ĥ applied ⟨Ĥ⟩? >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> For the record, here (again) is why you are wrong: inputs don't halt or >> not halt, computations do that. You do show a computation, though (Ĥ.qx >> ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩), but that computation halts (in state Ĥ.qn). And you do also >> show an input, the string ⟨Ĥ1⟩ ⟨Ĥ2⟩, whose "halting" could, I suppose, >> be taken to mean what happens were it simulated. But a UTM would halt >> given that input, so I can't attribute any correct meaning to your >> garbled statement. >> > > Richard's critique of my use of language was apt so I adapted it to this: > > In computability theory, the halting problem is the > problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary > computer program and an input, > > whether the simulation of this program must be aborted to > prevent it from running forever. > > The above criteria is valid on the basis of the known equivalence > between the direct execution of a computation and its simulation > by a UTM. > > The same criteria universally works on all inputs (pathological or not) > allowing their halting status to be correctly decided. > > By quoting the equivalence, that means that the 'simulation' referenced MUST be a real pure simulation that doesn't abort itself. Thus this means the test quoted must mean something like: if the input to the decider was given to a real pure simulator (UTM) it would never halt, then the decider is allowed to abort the simulation and correctly decide that the input represents a non-halting machine. Note, this does NOT mean that all copies of this decider get changed, just THIS ONE that we are testing, any copies included on the input tape must still refer to the original decider, not a UTM checker. Since we KNOW that UTM(<H^>, <H^>) halts, then the right answer for H(<H^>,<H^>) is Halting so the fact that is says non-halting is a wrong answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 20 of 37 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 … 37 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web