Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #36666 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-07-19 21:46 +0100 |
| Last post | 2021-07-20 14:17 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 525 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-19 21:46 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 14:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-20 21:06 +0200
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 13:43 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 13:56 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 14:16 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 14:50 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 22:33 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 23:30 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-21 13:17 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-22 13:35 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-22 22:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 14:22 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 14:30 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-23 23:15 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 15:28 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-23 16:49 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 16:09 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-24 02:34 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 21:53 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 21:54 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-08-05 15:37 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 17:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-05 11:41 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-05 11:48 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-08-05 20:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 13:55 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-05 15:51 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-08-05 23:20 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 13:53 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 22:21 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:42 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:48 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:49 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:52 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 21:58 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 16:10 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 16:14 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 16:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-24 12:50 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-24 00:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 16:59 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 00:42 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 12:55 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 13:13 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 14:08 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-24 18:07 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 01:50 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-24 20:58 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 04:03 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 04:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-25 13:34 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 17:14 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 10:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-25 13:10 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 11:31 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-25 13:22 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-25 12:43 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 12:25 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 12:46 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 13:04 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-25 16:58 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 20:38 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 20:52 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 13:54 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-25 22:53 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox rather than contradiction ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 21:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox rather than contradiction ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-25 23:09 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:20 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 07:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 10:09 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 11:41 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 11:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 14:40 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 15:29 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-26 11:16 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 13:57 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 13:55 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 15:34 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 14:53 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 16:01 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 19:14 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 18:21 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:03 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 19:24 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:30 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 20:34 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 22:18 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 21:24 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 22:31 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 21:55 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 23:39 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 22:59 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 10:27 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 22:22 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 02:42 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 10:24 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 08:54 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( finally quit lying ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 11:05 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( finally quit lying ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 09:29 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 12:07 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 11:17 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 13:29 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 11:47 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 14:10 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-27 12:58 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 16:23 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 11:01 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 09:25 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 21:38 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 16:14 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 16:20 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 15:04 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 00:33 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-27 11:16 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 12:31 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-27 13:42 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 17:20 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 22:11 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-27 21:39 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 09:09 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 09:31 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 11:38 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 10:08 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 13:35 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 12:47 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 14:07 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 12:56 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 17:25 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 22:25 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 21:36 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 23:09 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 21:50 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 23:57 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 23:10 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 13:07 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 11:52 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 13:52 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 22:35 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 12:40 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 15:06 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 13:35 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 17:36 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 22:51 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 21:08 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 22:15 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 23:31 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 23:00 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 12:39 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 12:15 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 13:50 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 22:18 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 13:15 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 12:25 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 13:55 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 17:50 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 16:58 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 18:27 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 18:25 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 19:54 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-29 18:08 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 19:25 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 23:34 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 22:44 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 20:42 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-30 18:57 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 21:08 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-30 20:54 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 09:14 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 08:02 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 10:20 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 08:41 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 12:00 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 11:25 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 13:52 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 12:14 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 14:41 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 12:54 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 15:39 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 15:11 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-31 15:37 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 08:26 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 11:35 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 11:31 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 13:57 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 12:23 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 14:52 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 13:02 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 15:43 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 15:18 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-30 08:54 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 10:58 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-30 13:23 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-29 16:15 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 09:34 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 02:41 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 08:56 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 09:37 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 22:04 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 16:22 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 15:06 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 21:54 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-27 11:21 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 21:17 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 20:25 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 19:36 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 18:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 21:28 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 21:46 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 23:42 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-26 01:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 18:20 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:32 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 07:57 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 09:57 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-27 02:17 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:41 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 19:57 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 08:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-27 00:48 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:06 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 19:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 22:44 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 17:08 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 15:22 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 18:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 20:52 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 00:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 18:35 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 01:58 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 20:54 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 20:56 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 01:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 20:00 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-29 18:11 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 02:52 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 21:08 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 12:39 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 09:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 20:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 21:28 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 19:38 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 13:39 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 09:54 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 20:58 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 20:16 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-31 23:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 21:20 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 11:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-01 05:12 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 13:41 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-01 07:25 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 16:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-01 11:41 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 20:26 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 14:45 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 13:28 -0700
Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 11:02 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 10:02 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 08:21 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 17:00 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 10:48 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 19:51 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 17:31 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 00:23 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 22:33 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 22:56 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 23:12 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 20:17 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:30 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-06 03:36 +0100
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 21:50 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 01:34 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 19:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 09:45 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 08:24 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 22:45 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 22:12 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-02 20:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 15:53 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-03 01:11 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 19:55 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-03 02:45 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 21:11 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-02 21:57 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 13:53 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 11:15 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 20:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 17:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 00:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 22:18 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 23:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 02:02 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 07:07 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:35 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 23:15 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 20:48 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-06 03:35 +0100
Page 6 conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 21:46 -0500
Re: Page 6 conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 01:38 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 22:01 -0500
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 22:13 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 22:29 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 22:23 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 21:44 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 21:56 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:00 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-08-03 21:12 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 22:16 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:25 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 22:36 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:55 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 23:36 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 10:14 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 21:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 07:13 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ]( Honest Dialogue ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 10:11 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:29 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 22:35 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 19:37 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 15:37 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 23:23 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 22:37 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 22:48 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 23:14 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 20:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:41 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-06 03:36 +0100
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 21:54 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 22:37 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 22:44 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-08-05 22:51 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 01:34 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-09 17:32 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-09 21:14 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 01:42 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 19:46 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 20:06 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 02:41 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 20:53 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 03:26 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 21:40 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 16:04 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 10:10 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 10:15 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 00:04 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 18:16 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 02:20 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 21:03 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 21:09 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben's key param agreement ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 21:08 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-11 17:32 -0600
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 18:40 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-11 23:11 -0600
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 01:36 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 07:24 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 08:40 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 10:50 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-13 01:58 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 08:30 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 22:01 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 16:15 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 10:29 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. (fixed type) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 21:42 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. // fixed typo (link added) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 23:36 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 09:28 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 09:58 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 17:10 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 11:52 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 01:35 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 19:40 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 19:44 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 21:00 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 15:36 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 22:10 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 16:26 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 00:00 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 18:28 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 18:33 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 01:26 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 19:49 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 02:05 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 20:19 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 21:44 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 02:49 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 21:20 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 10:01 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 08:35 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 21:20 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 15:56 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 22:28 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 16:33 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 23:06 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 17:12 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 23:25 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 17:47 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2021-08-13 16:54 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 22:35 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-14 13:22 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-13 20:41 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 17:24 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 01:53 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 20:14 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 02:51 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 21:21 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 22:57 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 09:53 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 08:31 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 21:38 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 22:09 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 14:53 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 01:01 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 19:26 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 02:28 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 18:07 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 02:35 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Halting Problem is solved for Ĥ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 21:14 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 07:49 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 23:40 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 11:48 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-11 04:09 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 22:56 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 22:13 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-02 20:11 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-31 15:47 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 21:52 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 02:18 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 21:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 12:00 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 09:35 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 20:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 19:42 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-30 18:27 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-31 22:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 16:57 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-31 15:48 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 11:39 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 22:17 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 20:36 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-02 17:31 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 13:16 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 13:25 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-03 01:20 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 20:01 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-02 22:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-02 22:29 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 08:00 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-03 07:33 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 10:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 11:11 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 14:26 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 14:08 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 15:47 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 14:56 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 16:03 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 15:26 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 16:50 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 16:35 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 19:42 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 19:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 20:24 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 21:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 22:30 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 22:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:03 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 22:08 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 10:48 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 21:52 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 09:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:43 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ][ André refuses an honest dialogue ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 09:04 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ][ André refuses an honest dialogue ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:41 -0500
H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct [ André refuses an honest dialogue ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 09:07 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 07:36 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-31 23:53 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 21:47 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 20:07 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:46 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 08:05 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-25 21:32 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 15:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 15:26 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-25 16:56 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 23:21 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 23:44 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 17:18 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 19:15 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 23:04 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-26 11:06 +0000
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 14:17 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 06:29 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 14:32 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 07:08 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 15:36 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 08:32 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-26 18:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-26 11:38 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 19:31 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-26 13:42 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-26 22:49 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 23:57 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-27 13:47 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 23:16 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-27 12:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-27 12:48 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 17:25 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-28 11:32 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-26 15:13 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-24 20:35 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 10:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 07:10 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 12:56 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-22 14:52 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 14:20 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 14:34 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 05:46 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-21 14:12 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 06:27 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-21 16:28 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-20 15:14 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 14:17 -0700
Page 3 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 27 Next page →
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-24 00:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87zgucfux4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #36936 |
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: > On 7/23/2021 3:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 7/22/2021 2:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 7/21/2021 5:17 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> For some stupid reason I always thought that the halting problem >>>>>>> extends to all problems, and all programs. >>>>>> It is a problem in mathematics and, like all mathematics, it is based on >>>>>> sound definitions. It says nothing about "all programs" unless "all >>>>>> programs" is a well-specified set. In that case, "all programs" might >>>>>> well have a halting problem, and might even have a halting theorem. >>>>>> The problem is always grounded to the context of some formal model of >>>>>> computation like Turing machines, recursive functions or the lambda >>>>>> calculus. I say "always" but that has to exclude comp.theory which is >>>>>> dominated by silly ideas coming from people who don't know much about >>>>>> such format models. >>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, here is some pure sarcasm: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Every program halts because they will not get to run >>>>>>> forever... Eventually, Earth will die. >>>>>> This is not just sarcasm. It's a plain fact. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well, based on this fact, can we say everything on Earth halts because >>>>> the planet will eventually die? >>>>> >>>>> Humm... It should be "helpful" to think about infinity, where the >>>>> program is being executed on a system that never dies. Its output is >>>>> being observed by beings that never die. >>>>> >>>>> Does the program halt in the realm of the infinite? >>>> I don't know what this means. I can answer about the mathematics, but I >>>> don't know about these hypothetical computations that take time and are >>>> "observed" by mythical creatures. >>> >>> I was just wondering if the algorihtm might halt in a finite number of >>> steps, but the number of steps would take a very long time. The Earth >>> would be dead long before it gets a chance to halt. >> Would Sum[n=1..oo] 1/n^2 still be = (pi^2)/6 even if every addition took >> a year? > > Sure. It converges on that value. Gaining precision every step. > > Sum[n=1..oo] 1/n^24 converges on 1. Putting aside the value, the point is that the sum simply "is". It's just daft to talk about addition taking time. The problem with TMs is the language suggests action, but there is none. A TM computation is simply an iterated partial sate-transition function. The sequence generated is either finite or it is not finite. That is fact about the function and the initial conditions just like a converging sum's value is a fact about limits. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-23 16:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sdfl4d$86d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #36944 |
On 7/23/2021 4:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 7/23/2021 3:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 7/22/2021 2:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/21/2021 5:17 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For some stupid reason I always thought that the halting problem >>>>>>>> extends to all problems, and all programs. >>>>>>> It is a problem in mathematics and, like all mathematics, it is based on >>>>>>> sound definitions. It says nothing about "all programs" unless "all >>>>>>> programs" is a well-specified set. In that case, "all programs" might >>>>>>> well have a halting problem, and might even have a halting theorem. >>>>>>> The problem is always grounded to the context of some formal model of >>>>>>> computation like Turing machines, recursive functions or the lambda >>>>>>> calculus. I say "always" but that has to exclude comp.theory which is >>>>>>> dominated by silly ideas coming from people who don't know much about >>>>>>> such format models. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, here is some pure sarcasm: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Every program halts because they will not get to run >>>>>>>> forever... Eventually, Earth will die. >>>>>>> This is not just sarcasm. It's a plain fact. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, based on this fact, can we say everything on Earth halts because >>>>>> the planet will eventually die? >>>>>> >>>>>> Humm... It should be "helpful" to think about infinity, where the >>>>>> program is being executed on a system that never dies. Its output is >>>>>> being observed by beings that never die. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does the program halt in the realm of the infinite? >>>>> I don't know what this means. I can answer about the mathematics, but I >>>>> don't know about these hypothetical computations that take time and are >>>>> "observed" by mythical creatures. >>>> >>>> I was just wondering if the algorihtm might halt in a finite number of >>>> steps, but the number of steps would take a very long time. The Earth >>>> would be dead long before it gets a chance to halt. >>> Would Sum[n=1..oo] 1/n^2 still be = (pi^2)/6 even if every addition took >>> a year? >> >> Sure. It converges on that value. Gaining precision every step. >> >> Sum[n=1..oo] 1/n^24 converges on 1. > > Putting aside the value, the point is that the sum simply "is". It's > just daft to talk about addition taking time. No problem. There in an instant. Makes me think of hyper processes. However, I use a lot of math that takes intervals or steps to reach a final result. Say, to draw a fractal. > > The problem with TMs is the language suggests action, but there is > none. A TM computation is simply an iterated partial sate-transition > function. The sequence generated is either finite or it is not finite. > That is fact about the function and the initial conditions just like a > converging sum's value is a fact about limits. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 00:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87pmv7ffed.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #36945 |
"Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: > On 7/23/2021 4:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 7/23/2021 3:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 7/22/2021 2:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/21/2021 5:17 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For some stupid reason I always thought that the halting problem >>>>>>>>> extends to all problems, and all programs. >>>>>>>> It is a problem in mathematics and, like all mathematics, it is based on >>>>>>>> sound definitions. It says nothing about "all programs" unless "all >>>>>>>> programs" is a well-specified set. In that case, "all programs" might >>>>>>>> well have a halting problem, and might even have a halting theorem. >>>>>>>> The problem is always grounded to the context of some formal model of >>>>>>>> computation like Turing machines, recursive functions or the lambda >>>>>>>> calculus. I say "always" but that has to exclude comp.theory which is >>>>>>>> dominated by silly ideas coming from people who don't know much about >>>>>>>> such format models. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, here is some pure sarcasm: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Every program halts because they will not get to run >>>>>>>>> forever... Eventually, Earth will die. >>>>>>>> This is not just sarcasm. It's a plain fact. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, based on this fact, can we say everything on Earth halts because >>>>>>> the planet will eventually die? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Humm... It should be "helpful" to think about infinity, where the >>>>>>> program is being executed on a system that never dies. Its output is >>>>>>> being observed by beings that never die. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does the program halt in the realm of the infinite? >>>>>> I don't know what this means. I can answer about the mathematics, but I >>>>>> don't know about these hypothetical computations that take time and are >>>>>> "observed" by mythical creatures. >>>>> >>>>> I was just wondering if the algorihtm might halt in a finite number of >>>>> steps, but the number of steps would take a very long time. The Earth >>>>> would be dead long before it gets a chance to halt. >>>> Would Sum[n=1..oo] 1/n^2 still be = (pi^2)/6 even if every addition took >>>> a year? >>> >>> Sure. It converges on that value. Gaining precision every step. >>> >>> Sum[n=1..oo] 1/n^24 converges on 1. >> Putting aside the value, the point is that the sum simply "is". It's >> just daft to talk about addition taking time. > > No problem. There in an instant. Makes me think of hyper > processes. It's not a view I like. 2 + 2 = 4 is simply a fact. It takes no time. > However, I use a lot of math that takes intervals or steps > to reach a final result. Say, to draw a fractal. You certainly can take lots of time to find out which facts are the case in any given situation. And sometimes you can't be sure to find out in any finite time. >> The problem with TMs is the language suggests action, but there is >> none. A TM computation is simply an iterated partial state-transition >> function. The sequence generated is either finite or it is not finite. >> That is fact about the function and the initial conditions just like a >> converging sum's value is a fact about limits. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 12:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sdkfit$s2o$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #37005 |
On 7/24/2021 4:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: > >> On 7/23/2021 4:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 7/23/2021 3:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/22/2021 2:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7/21/2021 5:17 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For some stupid reason I always thought that the halting problem >>>>>>>>>> extends to all problems, and all programs. >>>>>>>>> It is a problem in mathematics and, like all mathematics, it is based on >>>>>>>>> sound definitions. It says nothing about "all programs" unless "all >>>>>>>>> programs" is a well-specified set. In that case, "all programs" might >>>>>>>>> well have a halting problem, and might even have a halting theorem. >>>>>>>>> The problem is always grounded to the context of some formal model of >>>>>>>>> computation like Turing machines, recursive functions or the lambda >>>>>>>>> calculus. I say "always" but that has to exclude comp.theory which is >>>>>>>>> dominated by silly ideas coming from people who don't know much about >>>>>>>>> such format models. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well, here is some pure sarcasm: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Every program halts because they will not get to run >>>>>>>>>> forever... Eventually, Earth will die. >>>>>>>>> This is not just sarcasm. It's a plain fact. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, based on this fact, can we say everything on Earth halts because >>>>>>>> the planet will eventually die? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Humm... It should be "helpful" to think about infinity, where the >>>>>>>> program is being executed on a system that never dies. Its output is >>>>>>>> being observed by beings that never die. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does the program halt in the realm of the infinite? >>>>>>> I don't know what this means. I can answer about the mathematics, but I >>>>>>> don't know about these hypothetical computations that take time and are >>>>>>> "observed" by mythical creatures. >>>>>> >>>>>> I was just wondering if the algorihtm might halt in a finite number of >>>>>> steps, but the number of steps would take a very long time. The Earth >>>>>> would be dead long before it gets a chance to halt. >>>>> Would Sum[n=1..oo] 1/n^2 still be = (pi^2)/6 even if every addition took >>>>> a year? >>>> >>>> Sure. It converges on that value. Gaining precision every step. >>>> >>>> Sum[n=1..oo] 1/n^24 converges on 1. >>> Putting aside the value, the point is that the sum simply "is". It's >>> just daft to talk about addition taking time. >> >> No problem. There in an instant. Makes me think of hyper >> processes. > > It's not a view I like. 2 + 2 = 4 is simply a fact. It takes no time. Agreed. I can see where it is as it is, no time involved for these truths. > >> However, I use a lot of math that takes intervals or steps >> to reach a final result. Say, to draw a fractal. > > You certainly can take lots of time to find out which facts are the case > in any given situation. And sometimes you can't be sure to find out in > any finite time. True. The fun part it we can draw things step-by-step during iteration. > >>> The problem with TMs is the language suggests action, but there is >>> none. A TM computation is simply an iterated partial state-transition >>> function. The sequence generated is either finite or it is not finite. >>> That is fact about the function and the initial conditions just like a >>> converging sum's value is a fact about limits. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 13:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9CjLI.63054$h8.30198@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #37044 |
On 7/25/21 12:55 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 7/24/2021 4:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 7/23/2021 4:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 7/23/2021 3:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/22/2021 2:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2021 5:17 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For some stupid reason I always thought that the halting problem >>>>>>>>>>> extends to all problems, and all programs. >>>>>>>>>> It is a problem in mathematics and, like all mathematics, it >>>>>>>>>> is based on >>>>>>>>>> sound definitions. It says nothing about "all programs" >>>>>>>>>> unless "all >>>>>>>>>> programs" is a well-specified set. In that case, "all >>>>>>>>>> programs" might >>>>>>>>>> well have a halting problem, and might even have a halting >>>>>>>>>> theorem. >>>>>>>>>> The problem is always grounded to the context of some formal >>>>>>>>>> model of >>>>>>>>>> computation like Turing machines, recursive functions or the >>>>>>>>>> lambda >>>>>>>>>> calculus. I say "always" but that has to exclude comp.theory >>>>>>>>>> which is >>>>>>>>>> dominated by silly ideas coming from people who don't know >>>>>>>>>> much about >>>>>>>>>> such format models. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Well, here is some pure sarcasm: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Every program halts because they will not get to run >>>>>>>>>>> forever... Eventually, Earth will die. >>>>>>>>>> This is not just sarcasm. It's a plain fact. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Well, based on this fact, can we say everything on Earth halts >>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>> the planet will eventually die? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Humm... It should be "helpful" to think about infinity, where the >>>>>>>>> program is being executed on a system that never dies. Its >>>>>>>>> output is >>>>>>>>> being observed by beings that never die. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does the program halt in the realm of the infinite? >>>>>>>> I don't know what this means. I can answer about the >>>>>>>> mathematics, but I >>>>>>>> don't know about these hypothetical computations that take time >>>>>>>> and are >>>>>>>> "observed" by mythical creatures. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I was just wondering if the algorihtm might halt in a finite >>>>>>> number of >>>>>>> steps, but the number of steps would take a very long time. The >>>>>>> Earth >>>>>>> would be dead long before it gets a chance to halt. >>>>>> Would Sum[n=1..oo] 1/n^2 still be = (pi^2)/6 even if every >>>>>> addition took >>>>>> a year? >>>>> >>>>> Sure. It converges on that value. Gaining precision every step. >>>>> >>>>> Sum[n=1..oo] 1/n^24 converges on 1. >>>> Putting aside the value, the point is that the sum simply "is". It's >>>> just daft to talk about addition taking time. >>> >>> No problem. There in an instant. Makes me think of hyper >>> processes. >> >> It's not a view I like. 2 + 2 = 4 is simply a fact. It takes no time. > > Agreed. I can see where it is as it is, no time involved for these truths. > >> >>> However, I use a lot of math that takes intervals or steps >>> to reach a final result. Say, to draw a fractal. >> >> You certainly can take lots of time to find out which facts are the case >> in any given situation. And sometimes you can't be sure to find out in >> any finite time. > > True. The fun part it we can draw things step-by-step during iteration. > > >> >>>> The problem with TMs is the language suggests action, but there is >>>> none. A TM computation is simply an iterated partial state-transition >>>> function. The sequence generated is either finite or it is not finite. >>>> That is fact about the function and the initial conditions just like a >>>> converging sum's value is a fact about limits. >> > The key point is that FINITE sums don't matter how you do them, but some infinite sums DO matter the order you add the terms (if you break the infinite sum into multiple infinite series to add, how fast you progress down the different sets can give you different finite results if some of the sub-sequences do not have a finite sum. This is part of the complexity of the infinite series.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 14:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sdkjsb$12g1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #37048 |
On 7/25/2021 1:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/25/21 12:55 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 7/24/2021 4:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 7/23/2021 4:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/23/2021 3:15 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7/22/2021 2:10 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/21/2021 5:17 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For some stupid reason I always thought that the halting problem >>>>>>>>>>>> extends to all problems, and all programs. >>>>>>>>>>> It is a problem in mathematics and, like all mathematics, it >>>>>>>>>>> is based on >>>>>>>>>>> sound definitions. It says nothing about "all programs" >>>>>>>>>>> unless "all >>>>>>>>>>> programs" is a well-specified set. In that case, "all >>>>>>>>>>> programs" might >>>>>>>>>>> well have a halting problem, and might even have a halting >>>>>>>>>>> theorem. >>>>>>>>>>> The problem is always grounded to the context of some formal >>>>>>>>>>> model of >>>>>>>>>>> computation like Turing machines, recursive functions or the >>>>>>>>>>> lambda >>>>>>>>>>> calculus. I say "always" but that has to exclude comp.theory >>>>>>>>>>> which is >>>>>>>>>>> dominated by silly ideas coming from people who don't know >>>>>>>>>>> much about >>>>>>>>>>> such format models. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Well, here is some pure sarcasm: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Every program halts because they will not get to run >>>>>>>>>>>> forever... Eventually, Earth will die. >>>>>>>>>>> This is not just sarcasm. It's a plain fact. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Well, based on this fact, can we say everything on Earth halts >>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>> the planet will eventually die? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Humm... It should be "helpful" to think about infinity, where the >>>>>>>>>> program is being executed on a system that never dies. Its >>>>>>>>>> output is >>>>>>>>>> being observed by beings that never die. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Does the program halt in the realm of the infinite? >>>>>>>>> I don't know what this means. I can answer about the >>>>>>>>> mathematics, but I >>>>>>>>> don't know about these hypothetical computations that take time >>>>>>>>> and are >>>>>>>>> "observed" by mythical creatures. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I was just wondering if the algorihtm might halt in a finite >>>>>>>> number of >>>>>>>> steps, but the number of steps would take a very long time. The >>>>>>>> Earth >>>>>>>> would be dead long before it gets a chance to halt. >>>>>>> Would Sum[n=1..oo] 1/n^2 still be = (pi^2)/6 even if every >>>>>>> addition took >>>>>>> a year? >>>>>> >>>>>> Sure. It converges on that value. Gaining precision every step. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sum[n=1..oo] 1/n^24 converges on 1. >>>>> Putting aside the value, the point is that the sum simply "is". It's >>>>> just daft to talk about addition taking time. >>>> >>>> No problem. There in an instant. Makes me think of hyper >>>> processes. >>> >>> It's not a view I like. 2 + 2 = 4 is simply a fact. It takes no time. >> >> Agreed. I can see where it is as it is, no time involved for these truths. >> >>> >>>> However, I use a lot of math that takes intervals or steps >>>> to reach a final result. Say, to draw a fractal. >>> >>> You certainly can take lots of time to find out which facts are the case >>> in any given situation. And sometimes you can't be sure to find out in >>> any finite time. >> >> True. The fun part it we can draw things step-by-step during iteration. >> >> >>> >>>>> The problem with TMs is the language suggests action, but there is >>>>> none. A TM computation is simply an iterated partial state-transition >>>>> function. The sequence generated is either finite or it is not finite. >>>>> That is fact about the function and the initial conditions just like a >>>>> converging sum's value is a fact about limits. >>> >> > > The key point is that FINITE sums don't matter how you do them, but some > infinite sums DO matter the order you add the terms (if you break the > infinite sum into multiple infinite series to add, how fast you progress > down the different sets can give you different finite results if some of > the sub-sequences do not have a finite sum. > > This is part of the complexity of the infinite series. > True. Fwiw, I have great fun taking from the infinite pool and breaking things apart into segments. For instance drawing a finite view of an infinite field line on a segment-by-segment basis. Fwiw, here is an example of some of my work treating iterations of escape time fractals, like a Julia set in the following test, as a segment by segment process: https://youtu.be/UpNDkOKdcjk Also, this draws its lines on a segment-by-segment basis: http://fractallife247.com/fdla/ Try clicking around to create new attractors in the field in real time. Check this out, click on the Animation Testing 123 button: http://fractallife247.com/test Also, click around on the canvas. The lines are being constructed on a step-by-step basis.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-24 18:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <sdi9vb$r9b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #36944 |
On 2021-07-23 17:54, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >> Sum[n=1..oo] 1/n^24 converges on 1. > > Putting aside the value, the point is that the sum simply "is". It's > just daft to talk about addition taking time. A problem with convergent series is that there is a common misconception that such series represent a procedure for calculating a value rather than the value itself. While infinite series certainly suggest an algorithm for calculating a decimal approximation of some value to arbitrary precision, that's not really what they are. They are simple expressions of a mathematical equality. I think the view of 'series as procedures' is one of the reasons why so many crackp^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeople have problems accepting, e.g., that 0.999... = 1. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 01:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87eebnfc8c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37006 |
André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> writes:
> On 2021-07-23 17:54, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> Sum[n=1..oo] 1/n^24 converges on 1.
>> Putting aside the value, the point is that the sum simply "is". It's
>> just daft to talk about addition taking time.
>
> A problem with convergent series is that there is a common
> misconception that such series represent a procedure for calculating a
> value rather than the value itself.
>
> While infinite series certainly suggest an algorithm for calculating a
> decimal approximation of some value to arbitrary precision, that's not
> really what they are. They are simple expressions of a mathematical
> equality.
>
> I think the view of 'series as procedures' is one of the reasons why
> so many crackp^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeople have problems accepting, e.g., that
> 0.999... = 1.
Good point. Does this confusion occur in people with a maths
background? In maths, one is taught that
lim_{x->oo} f(x) = y
is simply a statement about a property of y and f, albeit a complicated
one:
∀ e > 0 [∃ c [∀ z > c [ |f(z) - y| < e ]]].
There's no notion of process, or steps, or calculation. Just something
that either is the case (lim 1/x = 0) or is not the case (lim 1/x = 1).
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-24 20:58 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <sdik04$d6a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37007 |
On 2021-07-24 18:50, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> writes: > >> On 2021-07-23 17:54, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >> >>>> Sum[n=1..oo] 1/n^24 converges on 1. >>> Putting aside the value, the point is that the sum simply "is". >>> It's just daft to talk about addition taking time. >> >> A problem with convergent series is that there is a common >> misconception that such series represent a procedure for >> calculating a value rather than the value itself. >> >> While infinite series certainly suggest an algorithm for >> calculating a decimal approximation of some value to arbitrary >> precision, that's not really what they are. They are simple >> expressions of a mathematical equality. >> >> I think the view of 'series as procedures' is one of the reasons >> why so many crackp^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeople have problems accepting, e.g., >> that 0.999... = 1. > > Good point. Does this confusion occur in people with a maths > background? In maths, one is taught that I'd hope not, though that's really a question that someone with a maths background should answer. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 04:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <19Kdna-u6-AOSWH9nZ2dnUU78QXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #37007 |
On 25/07/2021 01:50, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 2021-07-23 17:54, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>>> Sum[n=1..oo] 1/n^24 converges on 1.
>>> Putting aside the value, the point is that the sum simply "is". It's
>>> just daft to talk about addition taking time.
>>
>> A problem with convergent series is that there is a common
>> misconception that such series represent a procedure for calculating a
>> value rather than the value itself.
>>
>> While infinite series certainly suggest an algorithm for calculating a
>> decimal approximation of some value to arbitrary precision, that's not
>> really what they are. They are simple expressions of a mathematical
>> equality.
>>
>> I think the view of 'series as procedures' is one of the reasons why
>> so many crackp^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeople have problems accepting, e.g., that
>> 0.999... = 1.
>
> Good point. Does this confusion occur in people with a maths
> background? In maths, one is taught that
>
> lim_{x->oo} f(x) = y
>
> is simply a statement about a property of y and f, albeit a complicated
> one:
>
> ∀ e > 0 [∃ c [∀ z > c [ |f(z) - y| < e ]]].
>
> There's no notion of process, or steps, or calculation. Just something
> that either is the case (lim 1/x = 0) or is not the case (lim 1/x = 1).
>
Surely someone studying for degree level mathematics should not be
confused by claims 0.9999... != 1 [I'll add the obvious proviso "with
normal mathematical meanings for the terms"]. Such students would have
studied properties of the reals (in particular their Archimedean
property), and would properly understand what the notation used was
claiming. But while at high school I did have a disagreement with one
of my (A-level) maths teachers, who was firmly of the opinion that
0.9999... < 1 by an infinitesimal amount (without being too clear on
exactly what that meant!).
In any case, discussion of limits involves /abstract/ concepts and
definitions, so there's NO CHANCE PO could properly understand any of
that. I really do believe he is (pretty much) totally incapable of
dealing with abstract reasoning and concepts. He would simply have one
of his familiar "intuitions" as to how he thinks it all should work, and
he'd repeat those over and over without any backing of coherent
reasoning, even when he has led himself into some blatant contradiction!
:) For PO I would expect "limit" in his mind to become some kind of
computer program calculation loop or something.
[More generally I'd hope maths students would look at results,
definitions etc. as static or timeless in their nature as you're
suggesting, e.g. should see TMs / computations as abstract "structures"
related in particular ways without anthropomorphising them or confusing
them with concrete (time-based) physical processes.]
Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 04:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87tukjdqmi.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37011 |
Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
> On 25/07/2021 01:50, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> On 2021-07-23 17:54, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>>> Sum[n=1..oo] 1/n^24 converges on 1.
>>>> Putting aside the value, the point is that the sum simply "is". It's
>>>> just daft to talk about addition taking time.
>>>
>>> A problem with convergent series is that there is a common
>>> misconception that such series represent a procedure for calculating a
>>> value rather than the value itself.
>>>
>>> While infinite series certainly suggest an algorithm for calculating a
>>> decimal approximation of some value to arbitrary precision, that's not
>>> really what they are. They are simple expressions of a mathematical
>>> equality.
>>>
>>> I think the view of 'series as procedures' is one of the reasons why
>>> so many crackp^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeople have problems accepting, e.g., that
>>> 0.999... = 1.
>> Good point. Does this confusion occur in people with a maths
>> background? In maths, one is taught that
>> lim_{x->oo} f(x) = y
>> is simply a statement about a property of y and f, albeit a complicated
>> one:
>> ∀ e > 0 [∃ c [∀ z > c [ |f(z) - y| < e ]]].
>> There's no notion of process, or steps, or calculation. Just something
>> that either is the case (lim 1/x = 0) or is not the case (lim 1/x = 1).
>
> Surely someone studying for degree level mathematics should not be
> confused by claims 0.9999... != 1 [I'll add the obvious proviso "with
> normal mathematical meanings for the terms"]. Such students would
> have studied properties of the reals (in particular their Archimedean
> property), and would properly understand what the notation used was
> claiming.
I was not clear. The confusion I was referring to was whether people
with a maths background think of limits as processes. After giving the
definition, I think many teachers would then give a sort of "operational
explanation" that might stick in some student's minds as what's "really
going on". That's not how I learned it, but then I might be an outlier.
> In any case, discussion of limits involves /abstract/ concepts and
> definitions, so there's NO CHANCE PO could properly understand any of
> that. I really do believe he is (pretty much) totally incapable of
> dealing with abstract reasoning and concepts.
I hope so. The only other explanation is that he knows he's wrong and
he's now just lying.
But I'm not 100% sure he's honestly baffled. Ages ago, I presented a
challenge: "Show a function F such that F(P, I) is true if, and only if,
P(I) is a finite computation and false otherwise". He did not reject
this definition (as he now does) but in fact presented a candidate
function as a code sketch.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 13:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sdjlo4$1oct$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #37014 |
On 25/07/2021 04:22, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes:
>> Surely someone studying for degree level mathematics should not be
>> confused by claims 0.9999... != 1 [I'll add the obvious proviso "with
>> normal mathematical meanings for the terms"]. Such students would
>> have studied properties of the reals (in particular their Archimedean
>> property), and would properly understand what the notation used was
>> claiming.
It's not usually mathematicians who are confused about 0.999...,
but what we might call para-mathematicians; eg, engineers/physicists
who have learned quite a lot of maths as part of their degree, but have
not studied it as an abstraction. A lot of other people have at least
a passing interest in maths, perhaps puzzle-solving as a recreation,
come across things like 0.999... and wonder what is going on. They
[both groups, paras and puzzlers] can usually be convinced by one of
the "optical" arguments, such as "You agree that 0.333... == 1/3;
multiply both sides by 3" [this is perhaps not the place to discuss
the (in)validity of that argument!]. OTOH, they are also the ones most
likely to propose that 0.999...5 lies strictly between 0.999... and 1.
I think Mike is a bit optimistic about the extent to which
maths students study properties of the reals. I checked my old books
and notes. Most don't even mention the Archimedean property. In
Hardy's "Pure Mathematics", it's a footnote. The tendency is to
take standard properties of arithmetic as "given", and to press on
ASAP with the more interesting stuff to do with limits, calculus,
bounds, convergence, blah. Most maths students in the UK [it may be
different elsewhere] then go on to quite different parts of maths
and never re-visit foundational stuff.
The danger is to some extent the opposite of what is being
posited here, that querying "0.999... == 1" is a "confusion". If
you think "Well, viewed as a limit, it's obvious. Full stop. End
of debate, nothing to see here, move on.", then you miss out on a
whole slew of mathematics in which the Archimedean/Eudoxian axiom
does not hold, some of which is very interesting and practical, not
least, surreal numbers and games. Students often find these topics
difficult because they aren't sure which bits of elementary maths
they can still assume. Meanwhile, it's worth noting that there are
[lots of] games "G" such that
0.999...9 [any number of 9's] < G < 1.
This does not contradict "0.99... == 1" as "G" is not a real number;
but it does mean that it's a deeper result than we tend to assume.
> I was not clear. The confusion I was referring to was whether people
> with a maths background think of limits as processes. After giving the
> definition, I think many teachers would then give a sort of "operational
> explanation" that might stick in some student's minds as what's "really
> going on". That's not how I learned it, but then I might be an outlier.
We talk about [eg] "the limit /as x tends/ to 1". That
phraseology suggests a process, though not necessarily one rooted
in time ["do this, then do that, then ..."]. It doesn't seem to
me to be important; what matters, and what is often more difficult,
is to find out what the limit /is/. But worth noting that there is
a large branch of mathematics, numerical analysis, which concerns
itself with looking at the processes, and making them as efficient
and as accurate as possible. NA is one of the principal points of
contact between maths [and so the real world] and computing.
--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Chwatal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 17:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <eOadnfv1CNxEEGD9nZ2dnUU78RPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #37018 |
On 25/07/2021 13:34, Andy Walker wrote: > On 25/07/2021 04:22, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: >>> Surely someone studying for degree level mathematics should not be >>> confused by claims 0.9999... != 1 [I'll add the obvious proviso "with >>> normal mathematical meanings for the terms"]. Such students would >>> have studied properties of the reals (in particular their Archimedean >>> property), and would properly understand what the notation used was >>> claiming. > > It's not usually mathematicians who are confused about 0.999..., > but what we might call para-mathematicians; eg, engineers/physicists > who have learned quite a lot of maths as part of their degree, but have > not studied it as an abstraction. A lot of other people have at least > a passing interest in maths, perhaps puzzle-solving as a recreation, > come across things like 0.999... and wonder what is going on. They > [both groups, paras and puzzlers] can usually be convinced by one of > the "optical" arguments, such as "You agree that 0.333... == 1/3; > multiply both sides by 3" [this is perhaps not the place to discuss > the (in)validity of that argument!]. OTOH, they are also the ones most > likely to propose that 0.999...5 lies strictly between 0.999... and 1. > > I think Mike is a bit optimistic about the extent to which > maths students study properties of the reals. I checked my old books > and notes. Most don't even mention the Archimedean property. In > Hardy's "Pure Mathematics", it's a footnote. The tendency is to > take standard properties of arithmetic as "given", and to press on > ASAP with the more interesting stuff to do with limits, calculus, > bounds, convergence, blah. Most maths students in the UK [it may be > different elsewhere] then go on to quite different parts of maths > and never re-visit foundational stuff. You're undoubtably right about my over-optimism, but the Archimedian property is implicit in other results a maths student studying real analysis would have proved (probably still being too optimistic here, butI only have my own background to go by...!), e.g. between any two real numbers there is a rational number. There might well be no mention of the name "Archimedian property" - I don't think there was in my case, and I only came across that term many years later. I'm talking about "real analysis" here, not calculus courses, and I think someone studying maths at degree level could not avoid real analysis(?) But the level of detail/thoroughness will obviously vary considerably between institutions, probably having different final goals in mind. > > The danger is to some extent the opposite of what is being > posited here, that querying "0.999... == 1" is a "confusion". If > you think "Well, viewed as a limit, it's obvious. Full stop. End > of debate, nothing to see here, move on.", then you miss out on a > whole slew of mathematics in which the Archimedean/Eudoxian axiom > does not hold, some of which is very interesting and practical, not > least, surreal numbers and games. Students often find these topics > difficult because they aren't sure which bits of elementary maths > they can still assume. Meanwhile, it's worth noting that there are > [lots of] games "G" such that > > 0.999...9 [any number of 9's] < G < 1. > > This does not contradict "0.99... == 1" as "G" is not a real number; > but it does mean that it's a deeper result than we tend to assume. > Sure. I enjoyed Conway's "On Numbers and Games" as a student, and the easier "Winning Ways" books later on, but I would say that with all that understood, people who think 0.999... < 1 aren't thinking at all about surreal numbers! They are, almost universally, just confused, having never had to rigorously think through all the consequences of their position. (And that's perfectly reasonable - why /should/ someone spend time thinking through such issues? No reason at all.) If we grant that they were "really" talking about surreal numbers (or similar) then what surreal number is 0.9999... actually supposed to represent? Calling this s, with d = 1-s > 0 then what is 1-2d? If any reply is forthcoming it will be something like "that's 0.9999... with an 8 on the end, which is just incoherent - at least it can't make any sense with decimal notation being used. (We've not missed out on a whole slew of mathematics by saying that - it's still there, but just not so relevent to all the 0.999... < 1 arguments that go on. :) ) I think this is all a bit like Malcolm suggesting that PO is raising "interesting ideas" that might be useful with more study, or that some basic idea of PO's is "really quite clever...". It is NOT. PO has no incling of those possibilities and really no interest in them. He is simply saying things he naively thinks are true, without any logical reasoning going on. No cleverness at all. He is not "performing a magic trick", where he will pull a rabit out of a hat - he genuinely believes he is refuting the Linz proof, no tricks. Pretending otherwise may be being nice to PO, making him feel better, but is ultimately unhelpful IMO. I'd say it seems like "dishonest niceness" to me. (But maybe Malcolm really thinks PO is producing worthwhile results, or is on the path to that, in which case it's just being "actually nice"!) Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 10:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4826ab33-061b-472e-a1a5-e2ded35ecd82n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37026 |
On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:14:20 UTC+1, Mike Terry wrote: > > I think this is all a bit like Malcolm suggesting that PO is raising > "interesting ideas" that might be useful with more study, or that some > basic idea of PO's is "really quite clever...". It is NOT. PO has no > incling of those possibilities and really no interest in them. He is > simply saying things he naively thinks are true, without any logical > reasoning going on. No cleverness at all. He is not "performing a > magic trick", where he will pull a rabit out of a hat - he genuinely > believes he is refuting the Linz proof, no tricks. Pretending otherwise > may be being nice to PO, making him feel better, but is ultimately > unhelpful IMO. I'd say it seems like "dishonest niceness" to me. (But > maybe Malcolm really thinks PO is producing worthwhile results, or is on > the path to that, in which case it's just being "actually nice"!) > I've always been very clear that I haven't yet seen from PO anything that constitutes a refutation of Linz. However when we have, for example, the "H is the operating system" ruse, I do tend to say "that's a clever cheat" rather than "how could you make such a simple and obvious error?". Largely because it's a nicer way of conveying essentially the same information. I did say recently that PO had constructed his own paradox. It's this. If H is simulating halt decider, and is called on H, it creates a series of nested recursions. If it doesn't detect the situation, it never halts. If it does detect the situation and terminates the simulations, it halts. However if it halts, the nested recursions were not infinite. I do wonder if this could form the nucleus of an another proof that halting is undecidable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 13:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] |
| Message-ID | <eN2dndJR4fe4NGD9nZ2dnUU7-cPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37032 |
On 7/25/2021 12:40 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:14:20 UTC+1, Mike Terry wrote: >> >> I think this is all a bit like Malcolm suggesting that PO is raising >> "interesting ideas" that might be useful with more study, or that some >> basic idea of PO's is "really quite clever...". It is NOT. PO has no >> incling of those possibilities and really no interest in them. He is >> simply saying things he naively thinks are true, without any logical >> reasoning going on. No cleverness at all. He is not "performing a >> magic trick", where he will pull a rabit out of a hat - he genuinely >> believes he is refuting the Linz proof, no tricks. Pretending otherwise >> may be being nice to PO, making him feel better, but is ultimately >> unhelpful IMO. I'd say it seems like "dishonest niceness" to me. (But >> maybe Malcolm really thinks PO is producing worthwhile results, or is on >> the path to that, in which case it's just being "actually nice"!) >> > I've always been very clear that I haven't yet seen from PO anything that > constitutes a refutation of Linz. However when we have, for example, the > "H is the operating system" ruse, I do tend to say "that's a clever cheat" > rather than "how could you make such a simple and obvious error?". > Largely because it's a nicer way of conveying essentially the same > information. > > I did say recently that PO had constructed his own paradox. It's this. If > H is simulating halt decider, and is called on H, it creates a series of > nested recursions. If it doesn't detect the situation, it never halts. If > it does detect the situation and terminates the simulations, it halts. > However if it halts, the nested recursions were not infinite. > > I do wonder if this could form the nucleus of an another proof that > halting is undecidable. > _P() [00000c25](01) 55 push ebp [00000c26](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000c28](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000c2b](01) 50 push eax // 2nd Param [00000c2c](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000c2f](01) 51 push ecx // 1st Param [00000c30](05) e820fdffff call 00000955 // call H ... machine stack stack machine assembly address address data code language ======== ======== ======== ========= ============= Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:c25 [00000c25][00211776][0021177a] 55 push ebp // P1 begins [00000c26][00211776][0021177a] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000c28][00211776][0021177a] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000c2b][00211772][00000c25] 50 push eax // push P [00000c2c][00211772][00000c25] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000c2f][0021176e][00000c25] 51 push ecx // push P [00000c30][0021176a][00000c35] e820fdffff call 00000955 // call H1 [00000c25][0025c19e][0025c1a2] 55 push ebp // P2 begins [00000c26][0025c19e][0025c1a2] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000c28][0025c19e][0025c1a2] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000c2b][0025c19a][00000c25] 50 push eax // push P [00000c2c][0025c19a][00000c25] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000c2f][0025c196][00000c25] 51 push ecx // push P [00000c30][0025c192][00000c35] e820fdffff call 00000955 // call H2 Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped In the above computation (zero based addressing) H0 aborts P1 No P(P) ever stops running unless H0 aborts its simulation of P1 (1) H does perform a pure simulation of its input until after it makes its halt status decision. (2) It can be verified that this is a pure simulation on the basis that the execution trace does what the x86 source-code of P specifies. (3) Because there are no control flow instructions in the execution trace that can possibly escape the infinite recursion the execution trace proves that a pure simulation of the above input cannot possibly ever reach its final state. (4) Therefore H was correct when it decided that its input never halts. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 11:31 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] |
| Message-ID | <t6iLI.30384$ilwe.9684@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #37034 |
On 7/25/21 11:10 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/25/2021 12:40 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:14:20 UTC+1, Mike Terry wrote: >>> >>> I think this is all a bit like Malcolm suggesting that PO is raising >>> "interesting ideas" that might be useful with more study, or that some >>> basic idea of PO's is "really quite clever...". It is NOT. PO has no >>> incling of those possibilities and really no interest in them. He is >>> simply saying things he naively thinks are true, without any logical >>> reasoning going on. No cleverness at all. He is not "performing a >>> magic trick", where he will pull a rabit out of a hat - he genuinely >>> believes he is refuting the Linz proof, no tricks. Pretending otherwise >>> may be being nice to PO, making him feel better, but is ultimately >>> unhelpful IMO. I'd say it seems like "dishonest niceness" to me. (But >>> maybe Malcolm really thinks PO is producing worthwhile results, or is on >>> the path to that, in which case it's just being "actually nice"!) >>> >> I've always been very clear that I haven't yet seen from PO anything that >> constitutes a refutation of Linz. However when we have, for example, the >> "H is the operating system" ruse, I do tend to say "that's a clever >> cheat" >> rather than "how could you make such a simple and obvious error?". >> Largely because it's a nicer way of conveying essentially the same >> information. >> >> I did say recently that PO had constructed his own paradox. It's this. If >> H is simulating halt decider, and is called on H, it creates a series of >> nested recursions. If it doesn't detect the situation, it never halts. If >> it does detect the situation and terminates the simulations, it halts. >> However if it halts, the nested recursions were not infinite. >> >> I do wonder if this could form the nucleus of an another proof that >> halting is undecidable. >> > > _P() > [00000c25](01) 55 push ebp > [00000c26](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00000c28](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00000c2b](01) 50 push eax // 2nd Param > [00000c2c](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00000c2f](01) 51 push ecx // 1st Param > [00000c30](05) e820fdffff call 00000955 // call H > ... > > machine stack stack machine assembly > address address data code language > ======== ======== ======== ========= ============= > Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:c25 > [00000c25][00211776][0021177a] 55 push ebp // P1 begins > [00000c26][00211776][0021177a] 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00000c28][00211776][0021177a] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00000c2b][00211772][00000c25] 50 push eax // push P > [00000c2c][00211772][00000c25] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00000c2f][0021176e][00000c25] 51 push ecx // push P > [00000c30][0021176a][00000c35] e820fdffff call 00000955 // call H1 > > [00000c25][0025c19e][0025c1a2] 55 push ebp // P2 begins > [00000c26][0025c19e][0025c1a2] 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00000c28][0025c19e][0025c1a2] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00000c2b][0025c19a][00000c25] 50 push eax // push P > [00000c2c][0025c19a][00000c25] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00000c2f][0025c196][00000c25] 51 push ecx // push P > [00000c30][0025c192][00000c35] e820fdffff call 00000955 // call H2 > Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped > > In the above computation (zero based addressing) H0 aborts P1 > No P(P) ever stops running unless H0 aborts its simulation of P1 So, why does that matter. The P derived from the H that does abort its simulation of a copy of P does Halt, and thus shows that H was wrong. The OTHER P, derived from an H that doesn't abort its simulaton of P would be correctly decided as non-halting, but the H that is supposed to make that decision never gives an answer. Remember, H needs to give the right answer for the P that is derived from it. That is why Linz called that P with the name H^, to show that it was derived from that given H. Yes Ha, the aborting H can correctly determine that Pn, derived from Hn, the H that doesn't abort, but that is NOT the requirement of the Linz proof. You just tried to proof that cats bark by looking at a dog. FAIL. > > (1) H does perform a pure simulation of its input until after it makes > its halt status decision. And thus is NOT a pure simulator. If I start to count to infinitiy, and then stop, I didn't count to infinity. > > (2) It can be verified that this is a pure simulation on the basis that > the execution trace does what the x86 source-code of P specifies. And this is also wrong, as the Call instruction isn't traced correctly. > > (3) Because there are no control flow instructions in the execution > trace that can possibly escape the infinite recursion the execution > trace proves that a pure simulation of the above input cannot possibly > ever reach its final state. The is n control flow instructions only because the trace is incorrect. UNSOUND LOGIC. > > (4) Therefore H was correct when it decided that its input never halts. > A conclusiion that is as UNSOUND as you are. It is IMPOSSILBE for H to correctly answer non-halting for the H^ derived from it, since such a H^ is a Halting Computation. At best, you can show that your logic system is inconsistent and can show a 'proof' of anything.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 13:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] |
| Message-ID | <lIGdnRlv7c1_NmD9nZ2dnUU7-cXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37032 |
On 7/25/2021 12:40 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:14:20 UTC+1, Mike Terry wrote:
>>
>> I think this is all a bit like Malcolm suggesting that PO is raising
>> "interesting ideas" that might be useful with more study, or that some
>> basic idea of PO's is "really quite clever...". It is NOT. PO has no
>> incling of those possibilities and really no interest in them. He is
>> simply saying things he naively thinks are true, without any logical
>> reasoning going on. No cleverness at all. He is not "performing a
>> magic trick", where he will pull a rabit out of a hat - he genuinely
>> believes he is refuting the Linz proof, no tricks. Pretending otherwise
>> may be being nice to PO, making him feel better, but is ultimately
>> unhelpful IMO. I'd say it seems like "dishonest niceness" to me. (But
>> maybe Malcolm really thinks PO is producing worthwhile results, or is on
>> the path to that, in which case it's just being "actually nice"!)
>>
> I've always been very clear that I haven't yet seen from PO anything that
> constitutes a refutation of Linz. However when we have, for example, the
I made my refutation of Linz a little more clear by changing all of the
subscripts to be numeric. My refutation of Linz cannot be properly
understood until after my refutation of simplified Linz / Strachey is
first understood.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
The key thing that must be understood is that [ H(P,P)==0 is always
correct ] even though int main(){ P(P); } halts.
> "H is the operating system" ruse, I do tend to say "that's a clever cheat"
> rather than "how could you make such a simple and obvious error?".
> Largely because it's a nicer way of conveying essentially the same
> information.
>
> I did say recently that PO had constructed his own paradox. It's this. If
> H is simulating halt decider, and is called on H, it creates a series of
> nested recursions. If it doesn't detect the situation, it never halts. If
> it does detect the situation and terminates the simulations, it halts.
> However if it halts, the nested recursions were not infinite.
>
> I do wonder if this could form the nucleus of an another proof that
> halting is undecidable.
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 12:43 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] |
| Message-ID | <sdkbc3$if8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37036 |
On 2021-07-25 12:22, olcott wrote:
> The key thing that must be understood is that [ H(P,P)==0 is always
> correct ] even though int main(){ P(P); } halts.
So why don't you try to somehow explain the above.
A halt decider H is, *by definition* a Turing Machine that accepts (P,
P) if P(P) reaches one of its final states in a finite number of steps
and which rejects it if it does not reach one of its final states in a
finite number of steps.
int main(){ P(P); } *is* simply the computation P(P), and it *does*
reach a final state in a finite number of steps.
So how can H(P, P) be "correct" if it rejects P(P), a computation which
*you acknowledge* reaches a final state in a finite number of steps?
André
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 12:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] |
| Message-ID | <PUiLI.18250$Ei1.7756@fx07.iad> |
| In reply to | #37036 |
On 7/25/21 11:22 AM, olcott wrote:
> I made my refutation of Linz a little more clear by changing all of the
> subscripts to be numeric. My refutation of Linz cannot be properly
> understood until after my refutation of simplified Linz / Strachey is
> first understood.
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>
>
> The key thing that must be understood is that [ H(P,P)==0 is always
> correct ] even though int main(){ P(P); } halts.
>
As Andre says, this last statement shows that either you you are
suffering from cognitive dissonance (and thus lack the ability to really
see what is true), or actively proclaiming something as true which you
know must be a lie (and thus are a liar).
Going over you latest paper.
First Error, from the first paragraph. The Halting Problem is NOT about
'C Functions' but about FULL COMPUTATION. That means that when you
examine the C function P, you MUST include in your analysis EVERYTHING
that this C function calls. You fail to do that later, when you ignore
what H does. The 'Function' P is NOT the Turing Equivalent to the Turing
Machines you later describe. This makes your WHOLE argument invalid, as
you have lost your equivalenc arguement that the whole thing is based on.
You then make arguements about a halt decider that is a 'pure simulator
until it makes its decision' and then you apply rules to this that only
apply to machines that are a TRUE PURE SIMULATOR.
This is unsound logic.
Yes, the act of H aborting its simulation of the input doesn't change
the behavor of the machine it is simulating, but DOES affect the machine
that is using the algorithm of H as part of its algorithm. Thus, when H
is simulating the copy for the machine that is using it, and it sees a
copy of itself in that machine, the behavior of that copy of itself
AFTER is does abort its simulation is important to that machine that is
the first machine was simulating.
In Symbols
We have P0(P) -> H0(P,P) simulates P1(P) -> H1(P,P) simulates P2(P)
H0 needs to take into account that H1 will abort its simulattion of
P2(P) when it gets to that part of its execution when deciding what
P1(P) is going to do.
You may think of this as removing 'pathological behavior' but it is
removing ACTUAL behavior, and not looking at the full behavior is why it
gets the WRONG answer.
You make the claim later on that No P(P) halts unless H0 aborts P1.
This is true, but that doesn't actually have any bearing.
We have two cases.
An Hn that doesn't abort, and then the Pn derived from this is proved to
be non-halting, but Hn never gives an answer to Hn(Pn,Pn) si this isn't
of any significance.
An Ha that DOES abort, in this case we have shown that when Ha returns
the non-halting answer to Pa that Pa does halt. SInce we have shown that
Pa0 halts, we KNOW that Pa1 would have reached its halting state if H0
had only simulated it longer, thus Ha0 was INCORRECT in deciding that
Pa1(Pa) was non-halting.
Yes, Ha can correct determine that Pn(Pn) is non-halting, but that isn't
the question it is required to get right.
This is where you first fatal flaw fully reveals itself. The Machine P
isn't just the code of the C function P, but machine P includes as part
of it the H that is calls, and thus changing that changes the P we are
looking at, and analysis of the wrong P can give us incorrect answers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 12:46 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] |
| Message-ID | <ef88b158-08b8-492b-983f-e9c9a13ea6b8n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37040 |
On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 20:25:38 UTC+1, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/25/21 11:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>
> > I made my refutation of Linz a little more clear by changing all of the
> > subscripts to be numeric. My refutation of Linz cannot be properly
> > understood until after my refutation of simplified Linz / Strachey is
> > first understood.
> >
> > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
> >
> >
> > The key thing that must be understood is that [ H(P,P)==0 is always
> > correct ] even though int main(){ P(P); } halts.
> >
> As Andre says, this last statement shows that either you you are
> suffering from cognitive dissonance (and thus lack the ability to really
> see what is true), or actively proclaiming something as true which you
> know must be a lie (and thus are a liar).
>
We simplifyL inz H_Hat by removing the invert loop. Now, obviously, we
can write a decider which categorises it correctly by just writing "return
true". But that's not what we're after.
Keep H as a "simulating halt decider". That is, it simulates its input,
until it either the input halts, or it detects that the input has got trapped
in a cycle. Now input P(P) {H(P, P)}.
The simulator simulates itself. Now either its cycle detector detects
the situation, or t doesn't. If it doesn't, H contexts pile up and the the
machine never halts until it runs out of tape. If it does detect the cycle,
it terminates the simulations and P(P) halts.
So whatever H() decides, it has to get the answer wrong. I'm not quite sure
where PO is getting confused. But it's probably the paradox - if H
detects the cycle as infinite, it is finite, and vice versa.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web