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 23 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 27 Next page →
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-01 11:39 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <87im0pa1pp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37424 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 7/31/2021 4:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> It matters not what I had. >> Because you can't justify it the honest debate you claim to want. >> >>> It only matters what I have. >> I.e. nothing of any interest. You make it plain in a previous reply >> that you've had nothing of interest going right back to the original >> deceptive claim. >> >>> If you are sincere about an honest dialogue then we must quit focusing >>> on details of obsolete technology. >> And yet you skipped the big picture part: >> >>>> (5) You said you had "an H that decides (Ĥ, Ĥ)". What decision did your >>>> Dec 2018 code come to about "(Ĥ, Ĥ)"? >>> >>> The 2018 version Halts(H_Hat, H_Hat)==0 in the exact same way that >>> H(P,P)==0 now except that the never halting criteria is much more >>> elaborate. The initial criteria was very crude. >> >> Ah, so you never had H and H_Hat that do anything that anyone would say >> is impossible. Had you said, back in Dec 2018, "I have C code such that >> H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 but H_Hat(H_Hat) halts" no one would have been >> interested. > > If you are sincere about an honest dialogue then we must quit focusing > on details of obsolete technology. Ah, an honest dialogue requires me to ignore your past deception? Well, I can accommodate that: you /currently/ don't have anything that anyone would consider to be impossible or even interesting. An H/H_Hat pair such that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 and H_Hat(H_Hat) halts is of no interest to anyone. Is that better? >> I think you owe everyone an apology. Even if there was no indent to >> deceive, your words back then did everything possible to suggest some >> impossible Turing machine. And you wouldn't say, until recently, even >> when explicitly asked, what decision H came to. It was fishy from the >> start. You still owe everyone an apology. Neither Turing machines nor C code are obsolete technology. If you really had what you falsely claimed to have had, posting it at any time in the last 30 months would have settled the matter. It still would, but you either never had anything at all or you are too embarrassed to post what it was. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-01 22:17 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <6eOdnaoMUdZN_pr8nZ2dnUU7-cPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37442 |
On 8/1/2021 5:39 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 7/31/2021 4:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> It matters not what I had. >>> Because you can't justify it the honest debate you claim to want. >>> >>>> It only matters what I have. >>> I.e. nothing of any interest. You make it plain in a previous reply >>> that you've had nothing of interest going right back to the original >>> deceptive claim. >>> >>>> If you are sincere about an honest dialogue then we must quit focusing >>>> on details of obsolete technology. >>> And yet you skipped the big picture part: >>> >>>>> (5) You said you had "an H that decides (Ĥ, Ĥ)". What decision did your >>>>> Dec 2018 code come to about "(Ĥ, Ĥ)"? >>>> >>>> The 2018 version Halts(H_Hat, H_Hat)==0 in the exact same way that >>>> H(P,P)==0 now except that the never halting criteria is much more >>>> elaborate. The initial criteria was very crude. >>> >>> Ah, so you never had H and H_Hat that do anything that anyone would say >>> is impossible. Had you said, back in Dec 2018, "I have C code such that >>> H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 but H_Hat(H_Hat) halts" no one would have been >>> interested. >> >> If you are sincere about an honest dialogue then we must quit focusing >> on details of obsolete technology. > > Ah, an honest dialogue requires me to ignore your past deception? Well, > I can accommodate that: you /currently/ don't have anything that anyone > would consider to be impossible or even interesting. An H/H_Hat pair > such that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 and H_Hat(H_Hat) halts is of no interest > to anyone. Is that better? > When H is a simulating partial halt decider and the halt decider embedded in Ĥ at Ĥ.qx is a simulating halt decider then: It is the case that the input to H(P,P) and the input to Ĥ(⟨Ĥ⟩) cannot possibly ever reach their final state and must have their simulation aborted to prevent the infinite execution of P and Ĥ. Let's have an honest dialogue about that. >>> I think you owe everyone an apology. Even if there was no indent to >>> deceive, your words back then did everything possible to suggest some >>> impossible Turing machine. And you wouldn't say, until recently, even >>> when explicitly asked, what decision H came to. It was fishy from the >>> start. > > You still owe everyone an apology. Neither Turing machines nor C code > are obsolete technology. If you really had what you falsely claimed to > have had, posting it at any time in the last 30 months would have > settled the matter. It still would, but you either never had anything > at all or you are too embarrassed to post what it was. > The technology that I had in 2018 is obsolete and not relevant to an honest dialogue about the technology that I currently have. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-01 20:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <1LJNI.97822$VU3.31489@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #37479 |
> When H is a simulating partial halt decider and the halt decider > embedded in Ĥ at Ĥ.qx is a simulating halt decider then: > > It is the case that the input to H(P,P) and the input to Ĥ(⟨Ĥ⟩) cannot > possibly ever reach their final state and must have their simulation > aborted to prevent the infinite execution of P and Ĥ. > The key is that 'the input' doesn't need to reach the halting state, since the input ISN'T a Turing Machine, just a description. What matters is what the Turing Machine that input represents, and THAT Halts. The input will also halt if given to a REAL UTM, i.e. one that won't abort its input. The fact that the algorithm of H aborts its simulation before its simulation reachs its Halting state proves NOTHING. The fact that the decider uses UNSOUND logic says that its 'proof' is invalid. It makes the error of assuming that the copy of H that it is simulating will NEVER abort its simulation, when it would if allowed to run long enough, as is demonstrated in the trace of the actual run of H^(H^). > Let's have an honest dialogue about that. Yes. Please look at the ACTUAL facts. What statement do I make that is incorrect and you can PROVE to be wrong. EVERYTHING I have said is based on the ACTUAL definitions, not what sees to be by the 'meaning' of the words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-02 17:31 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <87y29j6c5e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37479 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/1/2021 5:39 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 7/31/2021 4:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> It matters not what I had. >>>> Because you can't justify it the honest debate you claim to want. >>>> >>>>> It only matters what I have. >>>> I.e. nothing of any interest. You make it plain in a previous reply >>>> that you've had nothing of interest going right back to the original >>>> deceptive claim. >>>> >>>>> If you are sincere about an honest dialogue then we must quit focusing >>>>> on details of obsolete technology. >>>> And yet you skipped the big picture part: >>>> >>>>>> (5) You said you had "an H that decides (Ĥ, Ĥ)". What decision did your >>>>>> Dec 2018 code come to about "(Ĥ, Ĥ)"? >>>>> >>>>> The 2018 version Halts(H_Hat, H_Hat)==0 in the exact same way that >>>>> H(P,P)==0 now except that the never halting criteria is much more >>>>> elaborate. The initial criteria was very crude. >>>> >>>> Ah, so you never had H and H_Hat that do anything that anyone would say >>>> is impossible. Had you said, back in Dec 2018, "I have C code such that >>>> H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 but H_Hat(H_Hat) halts" no one would have been >>>> interested. >>> >>> If you are sincere about an honest dialogue then we must quit focusing >>> on details of obsolete technology. >> >> Ah, an honest dialogue requires me to ignore your past deception? Well, >> I can accommodate that: you /currently/ don't have anything that anyone >> would consider to be impossible or even interesting. An H/H_Hat pair >> such that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 and H_Hat(H_Hat) halts is of no interest >> to anyone. Is that better? > > When H is a simulating partial halt decider and the halt decider > embedded in Ĥ at Ĥ.qx is a simulating halt decider then: > > It is the case that the input to H(P,P) and the input to Ĥ(⟨Ĥ⟩) cannot > possibly ever reach their final state and must have their simulation > aborted to prevent the infinite execution of P and Ĥ. > > Let's have an honest dialogue about that. Yes, let's. Here's how to say what happens without all those vague (and, frankly, incorrect) words: Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn If you don't mean Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn can you say what you do mean formally? Formally means using some formal notation like Linz does. If what you want to say is all about what happens in that second ⊢* (i.e. all the nested simulations and so on) then don't bother, because what makes your Ĥ irrelevant is what state Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets to, not how it gets there. >>>> I think you owe everyone an apology. Even if there was no indent to >>>> deceive, your words back then did everything possible to suggest some >>>> impossible Turing machine. And you wouldn't say, until recently, even >>>> when explicitly asked, what decision H came to. It was fishy from the >>>> start. >> You still owe everyone an apology. Neither Turing machines nor C code >> are obsolete technology. If you really had what you falsely claimed to >> have had, posting it at any time in the last 30 months would have >> settled the matter. It still would, but you either never had anything >> at all or you are too embarrassed to post what it was. > > The technology that I had in 2018 is obsolete and not relevant to an > honest dialogue about the technology that I currently have. You had C code. C code is not obsolete. It's also a good formalism. You could say what you meant back then by posting the code. But you won't post it either because you never had it or you are embarrassed by it. An honest academic would simply say "this is what I had -- very rough and ready, isn't it? Here's the tidied up version...". -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-02 13:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <p8SdnV8dJu3wq5X8nZ2dnUU7-a3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37495 |
On 8/2/2021 11:31 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/1/2021 5:39 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 7/31/2021 4:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> It matters not what I had. >>>>> Because you can't justify it the honest debate you claim to want. >>>>> >>>>>> It only matters what I have. >>>>> I.e. nothing of any interest. You make it plain in a previous reply >>>>> that you've had nothing of interest going right back to the original >>>>> deceptive claim. >>>>> >>>>>> If you are sincere about an honest dialogue then we must quit focusing >>>>>> on details of obsolete technology. >>>>> And yet you skipped the big picture part: >>>>> >>>>>>> (5) You said you had "an H that decides (Ĥ, Ĥ)". What decision did your >>>>>>> Dec 2018 code come to about "(Ĥ, Ĥ)"? >>>>>> >>>>>> The 2018 version Halts(H_Hat, H_Hat)==0 in the exact same way that >>>>>> H(P,P)==0 now except that the never halting criteria is much more >>>>>> elaborate. The initial criteria was very crude. >>>>> >>>>> Ah, so you never had H and H_Hat that do anything that anyone would say >>>>> is impossible. Had you said, back in Dec 2018, "I have C code such that >>>>> H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 but H_Hat(H_Hat) halts" no one would have been >>>>> interested. >>>> >>>> If you are sincere about an honest dialogue then we must quit focusing >>>> on details of obsolete technology. >>> >>> Ah, an honest dialogue requires me to ignore your past deception? Well, >>> I can accommodate that: you /currently/ don't have anything that anyone >>> would consider to be impossible or even interesting. An H/H_Hat pair >>> such that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 and H_Hat(H_Hat) halts is of no interest >>> to anyone. Is that better? >> >> When H is a simulating partial halt decider and the halt decider >> embedded in Ĥ at Ĥ.qx is a simulating halt decider then: >> >> It is the case that the input to H(P,P) and the input to Ĥ(⟨Ĥ⟩) cannot >> possibly ever reach their final state and must have their simulation >> aborted to prevent the infinite execution of P and Ĥ. >> >> Let's have an honest dialogue about that. > > Yes, let's. Here's how to say what happens without all those vague > (and, frankly, incorrect) words: > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > > If you don't mean > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > > can you say what you do mean formally? Formally means using some > formal notation like Linz does. > As Linz already specifies yet does not encode in his notation there are at least three separate and distinct instances of Ĥ. The first one of these instances is the actual Turing machine Ĥ. The second one is the TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ input to Ĥ. The third one is the copy of the TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ input to Ĥ. If we do not keep track of these distinctions then it seems like Ĥ.qx decides that its input never halts and then its input immediately halts. This would be an actual contradiction. When we do keep track of these distinctions then the input: ⟨Ĥ^1⟩ to Ĥ^0 can be understood to never reach its final states Ĥ^1.qy or Ĥ^1.qn thus proving that Ĥ^0.qx did correctly decide that its input ⟨Ĥ^1⟩ ⟨Ĥ^2⟩ never halts. > If what you want to say is all about what happens in that second ⊢* > (i.e. all the nested simulations and so on) then don't bother, because > what makes your Ĥ irrelevant is what state Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets to, not > how it gets there. > >>>>> I think you owe everyone an apology. Even if there was no indent to >>>>> deceive, your words back then did everything possible to suggest some >>>>> impossible Turing machine. And you wouldn't say, until recently, even >>>>> when explicitly asked, what decision H came to. It was fishy from the >>>>> start. >>> You still owe everyone an apology. Neither Turing machines nor C code >>> are obsolete technology. If you really had what you falsely claimed to >>> have had, posting it at any time in the last 30 months would have >>> settled the matter. It still would, but you either never had anything >>> at all or you are too embarrassed to post what it was. >> >> The technology that I had in 2018 is obsolete and not relevant to an >> honest dialogue about the technology that I currently have. > > You had C code. C code is not obsolete. It's also a good formalism. > You could say what you meant back then by posting the code. But you > won't post it either because you never had it or you are embarrassed by > it. An honest academic would simply say "this is what I had -- very > rough and ready, isn't it? Here's the tidied up version...". > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-02 13:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <DYednaixofwWpZX8nZ2dnUU78eHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37499 |
On 8/2/2021 1:16 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/2/2021 11:31 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/1/2021 5:39 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 7/31/2021 4:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It matters not what I had. >>>>>> Because you can't justify it the honest debate you claim to want. >>>>>> >>>>>>> It only matters what I have. >>>>>> I.e. nothing of any interest. You make it plain in a previous reply >>>>>> that you've had nothing of interest going right back to the original >>>>>> deceptive claim. >>>>>> >>>>>>> If you are sincere about an honest dialogue then we must quit >>>>>>> focusing >>>>>>> on details of obsolete technology. >>>>>> And yet you skipped the big picture part: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> (5) You said you had "an H that decides (Ĥ, Ĥ)". What decision >>>>>>>> did your >>>>>>>> Dec 2018 code come to about "(Ĥ, Ĥ)"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The 2018 version Halts(H_Hat, H_Hat)==0 in the exact same way that >>>>>>> H(P,P)==0 now except that the never halting criteria is much more >>>>>>> elaborate. The initial criteria was very crude. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, so you never had H and H_Hat that do anything that anyone >>>>>> would say >>>>>> is impossible. Had you said, back in Dec 2018, "I have C code >>>>>> such that >>>>>> H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 but H_Hat(H_Hat) halts" no one would have been >>>>>> interested. >>>>> >>>>> If you are sincere about an honest dialogue then we must quit focusing >>>>> on details of obsolete technology. >>>> >>>> Ah, an honest dialogue requires me to ignore your past deception? >>>> Well, >>>> I can accommodate that: you /currently/ don't have anything that anyone >>>> would consider to be impossible or even interesting. An H/H_Hat pair >>>> such that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 and H_Hat(H_Hat) halts is of no interest >>>> to anyone. Is that better? >>> >>> When H is a simulating partial halt decider and the halt decider >>> embedded in Ĥ at Ĥ.qx is a simulating halt decider then: >>> >>> It is the case that the input to H(P,P) and the input to Ĥ(⟨Ĥ⟩) cannot >>> possibly ever reach their final state and must have their simulation >>> aborted to prevent the infinite execution of P and Ĥ. >>> >>> Let's have an honest dialogue about that. >> >> Yes, let's. Here's how to say what happens without all those vague >> (and, frankly, incorrect) words: >> >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> >> If you don't mean >> >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> >> can you say what you do mean formally? Formally means using some >> formal notation like Linz does. >> > > As Linz already specifies yet does not encode in his notation there are > at least three separate and distinct instances of Ĥ. > > The first one of these instances is the actual Turing machine Ĥ. > The second one is the TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ input to Ĥ. > The third one is the copy of the TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ input to Ĥ. > > If we do not keep track of these distinctions then it seems like Ĥ.qx > decides that its input never halts and then its input immediately halts. > This would be an actual contradiction. > > When we do keep track of these distinctions then the input: ⟨Ĥ^1⟩ to Ĥ^0 > can be understood to never reach its final states Ĥ^1.qy or Ĥ^1.qn thus > proving that Ĥ^0.qx did correctly decide that its input ⟨Ĥ^1⟩ ⟨Ĥ^2⟩ > never halts. H[0] means H<sub>0</sub> When we do keep track of these distinctions then the input: ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ to Ĥ[0] can be understood to never reach its final states Ĥ[1].qy or Ĥ[1].qn thus proving that Ĥ[0].qx did correctly decide that its input ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ never halts. >> If what you want to say is all about what happens in that second ⊢* >> (i.e. all the nested simulations and so on) then don't bother, because >> what makes your Ĥ irrelevant is what state Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ gets to, not >> how it gets there. >> >>>>>> I think you owe everyone an apology. Even if there was no indent to >>>>>> deceive, your words back then did everything possible to suggest some >>>>>> impossible Turing machine. And you wouldn't say, until recently, >>>>>> even >>>>>> when explicitly asked, what decision H came to. It was fishy from >>>>>> the >>>>>> start. >>>> You still owe everyone an apology. Neither Turing machines nor C code >>>> are obsolete technology. If you really had what you falsely claimed to >>>> have had, posting it at any time in the last 30 months would have >>>> settled the matter. It still would, but you either never had anything >>>> at all or you are too embarrassed to post what it was. >>> >>> The technology that I had in 2018 is obsolete and not relevant to an >>> honest dialogue about the technology that I currently have. >> >> You had C code. C code is not obsolete. It's also a good formalism. >> You could say what you meant back then by posting the code. But you >> won't post it either because you never had it or you are embarrassed by >> it. An honest academic would simply say "this is what I had -- very >> rough and ready, isn't it? Here's the tidied up version...". >> > > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-03 01:20 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <875ywn5qfr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37499 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 8/2/2021 11:31 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/1/2021 5:39 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 7/31/2021 4:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> It matters not what I had. >>>>>> Because you can't justify it the honest debate you claim to want. >>>>>> >>>>>>> It only matters what I have. >>>>>> I.e. nothing of any interest. You make it plain in a previous reply >>>>>> that you've had nothing of interest going right back to the original >>>>>> deceptive claim. >>>>>> >>>>>>> If you are sincere about an honest dialogue then we must quit focusing >>>>>>> on details of obsolete technology. >>>>>> And yet you skipped the big picture part: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> (5) You said you had "an H that decides (Ĥ, Ĥ)". What decision did your >>>>>>>> Dec 2018 code come to about "(Ĥ, Ĥ)"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The 2018 version Halts(H_Hat, H_Hat)==0 in the exact same way that >>>>>>> H(P,P)==0 now except that the never halting criteria is much more >>>>>>> elaborate. The initial criteria was very crude. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, so you never had H and H_Hat that do anything that anyone would say >>>>>> is impossible. Had you said, back in Dec 2018, "I have C code such that >>>>>> H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 but H_Hat(H_Hat) halts" no one would have been >>>>>> interested. >>>>> >>>>> If you are sincere about an honest dialogue then we must quit focusing >>>>> on details of obsolete technology. >>>> >>>> Ah, an honest dialogue requires me to ignore your past deception? Well, >>>> I can accommodate that: you /currently/ don't have anything that anyone >>>> would consider to be impossible or even interesting. An H/H_Hat pair >>>> such that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 and H_Hat(H_Hat) halts is of no interest >>>> to anyone. Is that better? >>> >>> When H is a simulating partial halt decider and the halt decider >>> embedded in Ĥ at Ĥ.qx is a simulating halt decider then: >>> >>> It is the case that the input to H(P,P) and the input to Ĥ(⟨Ĥ⟩) cannot >>> possibly ever reach their final state and must have their simulation >>> aborted to prevent the infinite execution of P and Ĥ. >>> >>> Let's have an honest dialogue about that. >> >> Yes, let's. Here's how to say what happens without all those vague >> (and, frankly, incorrect) words: >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> If you don't mean >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> can you say what you do mean formally? Formally means using some >> formal notation like Linz does. > > As Linz already specifies yet does not encode in his notation there > are at least three separate and distinct instances of Ĥ. You are not replying to my remarks. Anyway, I've posted at more length elsewhere the same point that you keep side-stepping. I think the pattern is set: I'll keep accepting (even when it's wrong) what you say happens /before/ Ĥ(⟨Ĥ⟩) transitions to Ĥ.qn, and you'll keep ignoring why Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn shows your Ĥ is irrelevant. I don't think progress can be made like that. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-02 20:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <hJmdnSWv8-zPCJX8nZ2dnUU7-T_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37508 |
On 8/2/2021 7:20 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 8/2/2021 11:31 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 8/1/2021 5:39 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/31/2021 4:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It matters not what I had. >>>>>>> Because you can't justify it the honest debate you claim to want. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It only matters what I have. >>>>>>> I.e. nothing of any interest. You make it plain in a previous reply >>>>>>> that you've had nothing of interest going right back to the original >>>>>>> deceptive claim. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you are sincere about an honest dialogue then we must quit focusing >>>>>>>> on details of obsolete technology. >>>>>>> And yet you skipped the big picture part: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> (5) You said you had "an H that decides (Ĥ, Ĥ)". What decision did your >>>>>>>>> Dec 2018 code come to about "(Ĥ, Ĥ)"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The 2018 version Halts(H_Hat, H_Hat)==0 in the exact same way that >>>>>>>> H(P,P)==0 now except that the never halting criteria is much more >>>>>>>> elaborate. The initial criteria was very crude. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ah, so you never had H and H_Hat that do anything that anyone would say >>>>>>> is impossible. Had you said, back in Dec 2018, "I have C code such that >>>>>>> H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 but H_Hat(H_Hat) halts" no one would have been >>>>>>> interested. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you are sincere about an honest dialogue then we must quit focusing >>>>>> on details of obsolete technology. >>>>> >>>>> Ah, an honest dialogue requires me to ignore your past deception? Well, >>>>> I can accommodate that: you /currently/ don't have anything that anyone >>>>> would consider to be impossible or even interesting. An H/H_Hat pair >>>>> such that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 and H_Hat(H_Hat) halts is of no interest >>>>> to anyone. Is that better? >>>> >>>> When H is a simulating partial halt decider and the halt decider >>>> embedded in Ĥ at Ĥ.qx is a simulating halt decider then: >>>> >>>> It is the case that the input to H(P,P) and the input to Ĥ(⟨Ĥ⟩) cannot >>>> possibly ever reach their final state and must have their simulation >>>> aborted to prevent the infinite execution of P and Ĥ. >>>> >>>> Let's have an honest dialogue about that. >>> >>> Yes, let's. Here's how to say what happens without all those vague >>> (and, frankly, incorrect) words: >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> If you don't mean >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> can you say what you do mean formally? Formally means using some >>> formal notation like Linz does. >> >> As Linz already specifies yet does not encode in his notation there >> are at least three separate and distinct instances of Ĥ. > > You are not replying to my remarks. Anyway, I've posted at more length > elsewhere the same point that you keep side-stepping. I think the > pattern is set: I'll keep accepting (even when it's wrong) what you say > happens /before/ Ĥ(⟨Ĥ⟩) transitions to Ĥ.qn, and you'll keep ignoring > why Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn shows your Ĥ is irrelevant. > > I don't think progress can be made like that. > As long as you keep thinking of it as a resolved contradiction the actual paradox remains unresolved. I proved that Ĥ.qx does correctly decide that its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never halts it is also equally proven that Ĥ halts thus a paradox and not a contradiction is formed. My current answer to this is GIGO self-contradictory input <IN> contractory output <OUT>. There may be a better answer. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-02 22:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <074OI.26373$uj5.22062@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #37511 |
On 8/2/21 6:01 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/2/2021 7:20 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 8/2/2021 11:31 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 8/1/2021 5:39 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/31/2021 4:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It matters not what I had. >>>>>>>> Because you can't justify it the honest debate you claim to want. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It only matters what I have. >>>>>>>> I.e. nothing of any interest. You make it plain in a previous >>>>>>>> reply >>>>>>>> that you've had nothing of interest going right back to the >>>>>>>> original >>>>>>>> deceptive claim. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you are sincere about an honest dialogue then we must quit >>>>>>>>> focusing >>>>>>>>> on details of obsolete technology. >>>>>>>> And yet you skipped the big picture part: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> (5) You said you had "an H that decides (Ĥ, Ĥ)". What >>>>>>>>>> decision did your >>>>>>>>>> Dec 2018 code come to about "(Ĥ, Ĥ)"? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The 2018 version Halts(H_Hat, H_Hat)==0 in the exact same way that >>>>>>>>> H(P,P)==0 now except that the never halting criteria is much more >>>>>>>>> elaborate. The initial criteria was very crude. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ah, so you never had H and H_Hat that do anything that anyone >>>>>>>> would say >>>>>>>> is impossible. Had you said, back in Dec 2018, "I have C code >>>>>>>> such that >>>>>>>> H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 but H_Hat(H_Hat) halts" no one would have been >>>>>>>> interested. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you are sincere about an honest dialogue then we must quit >>>>>>> focusing >>>>>>> on details of obsolete technology. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah, an honest dialogue requires me to ignore your past deception? >>>>>> Well, >>>>>> I can accommodate that: you /currently/ don't have anything that >>>>>> anyone >>>>>> would consider to be impossible or even interesting. An H/H_Hat pair >>>>>> such that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 and H_Hat(H_Hat) halts is of no >>>>>> interest >>>>>> to anyone. Is that better? >>>>> >>>>> When H is a simulating partial halt decider and the halt decider >>>>> embedded in Ĥ at Ĥ.qx is a simulating halt decider then: >>>>> >>>>> It is the case that the input to H(P,P) and the input to Ĥ(⟨Ĥ⟩) cannot >>>>> possibly ever reach their final state and must have their simulation >>>>> aborted to prevent the infinite execution of P and Ĥ. >>>>> >>>>> Let's have an honest dialogue about that. >>>> >>>> Yes, let's. Here's how to say what happens without all those vague >>>> (and, frankly, incorrect) words: >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> If you don't mean >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> can you say what you do mean formally? Formally means using some >>>> formal notation like Linz does. >>> >>> As Linz already specifies yet does not encode in his notation there >>> are at least three separate and distinct instances of Ĥ. >> >> You are not replying to my remarks. Anyway, I've posted at more length >> elsewhere the same point that you keep side-stepping. I think the >> pattern is set: I'll keep accepting (even when it's wrong) what you say >> happens /before/ Ĥ(⟨Ĥ⟩) transitions to Ĥ.qn, and you'll keep ignoring >> why Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn shows your Ĥ is irrelevant. >> >> I don't think progress can be made like that. >> > > As long as you keep thinking of it as a resolved contradiction the > actual paradox remains unresolved. > > I proved that Ĥ.qx does correctly decide that its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never > halts it is also equally proven that Ĥ halts thus a paradox and not a > contradiction is formed. > > My current answer to this is GIGO self-contradictory input <IN> > contractory output <OUT>. There may be a better answer. > No. Since H aborts its simulation, the mere fact that its simulation did not reach a halting state actually proves NOTHING. ALL versions of H^ are the same algorithm, so will do the EXACT SAME BEHAVIOR, at least if actually run to completion. The fact that H incorrectly decides (since it works from the FALSE premise that H will never abort its simulation) that H^((H^)) is non-halting and thus aborts the simulation doesn't mean that it is non-halting, in fact from the H^[0] result we know that ALL H^((H^)) computations are Halting. (Not just H^[0]). It is a FUNDAMENTAL, DEFINITIONAL fact that ALL instances of a given machine/input will behave identically.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-02 22:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <3df616af-1e70-413f-8534-fb4ca6204c28n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37511 |
On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 02:01:14 UTC+1, olcott wrote: > On 8/2/2021 7:20 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > As long as you keep thinking of it as a resolved contradiction the > actual paradox remains unresolved. > > I proved that Ĥ.qx does correctly decide that its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never > halts it is also equally proven that Ĥ halts thus a paradox and not a > contradiction is formed. > > My current answer to this is GIGO self-contradictory input <IN> > contractory output <OUT>. There may be a better answer. > With your H, H_Hat <H_Hat> halts. That's common ground. With your H H<H_Hat><H_Hat> returns false (non-halting). That's also common ground. So one positive in this is that you are clearly being honest about the behaviour of your code. But don't you see that this behaviour is exactly what Linz says would happen? H_Hat<H_Hat> is a case that H cannot classify correctly. You're trying to claim that H_Hat<H_Hat> doens't really halt because the recursion of H instances is terminated by H. This leads us down a rabbit hole of talking of the "inner" and "outer" H or H1, H2 and so on. But what Linz is saying is that the internal details of H don't matter. It can be a simulating halt decider, a control graph anlyser, or even just a stub machine that returns a flag. However cleverly or simply it is written, it classifies H_Hat<H_Hat> wrongly. I think it's high time to wind up these threads.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-03 08:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <_ZudnRCgbJV5oJT8nZ2dnUU7-VXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37526 |
On 8/3/2021 12:29 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 02:01:14 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >> On 8/2/2021 7:20 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >> As long as you keep thinking of it as a resolved contradiction the >> actual paradox remains unresolved. >> >> I proved that Ĥ.qx does correctly decide that its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ never >> halts it is also equally proven that Ĥ halts thus a paradox and not a >> contradiction is formed. >> >> My current answer to this is GIGO self-contradictory input <IN> >> contractory output <OUT>. There may be a better answer. >> > With your H, H_Hat <H_Hat> halts. That's common ground. > With your H H<H_Hat><H_Hat> returns false (non-halting). That's also > common ground. > > So one positive in this is that you are clearly being honest about the > behaviour of your code. > But don't you see that this behaviour is exactly what Linz says would > happen? H_Hat<H_Hat> is a case that H cannot classify correctly. > On pages 4-6 I proves that H(P,P) does correctly decide that its input never halts. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation Thus meeting this criteria: In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem > You're trying to claim that H_Hat<H_Hat> doens't really halt because > the recursion of H instances is terminated by H. No I have never been saying that. I am claiming that the input to H(P,P) never halts whether or not H terminates its simulation of this input. No I have never been saying that. I am claiming that the input to H(P,P) never halts whether or not H terminates its simulation of this input. No I have never been saying that. I am claiming that the input to H(P,P) never halts whether or not H terminates its simulation of this input. No I have never been saying that. I am claiming that the input to H(P,P) never halts whether or not H terminates its simulation of this input. > This leads us down > a rabbit hole of talking of the "inner" and "outer" H or H1, H2 and so on. None-the-less if this is where the actual truth is we can't simply dismiss it out-of-hand. > But what Linz is saying is that the internal details of H don't matter. It > can be a simulating halt decider, a control graph anlyser, or even just > a stub machine that returns a flag. However cleverly or simply it is > written, it classifies H_Hat<H_Hat> wrongly. > We can see that the input to H(P,P) never halts therefore H IS NOT WRONG. > I think it's high time to wind up these threads. > I think that it is high time that people actually pay complete attention. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-03 07:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <f5026a04-cbe0-4809-82d9-27ecaf1fd1afn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37548 |
On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 14:00:28 UTC+1, olcott wrote: > On 8/3/2021 12:29 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > > You're trying to claim that H_Hat<H_Hat> doens't really halt because > > the recursion of H instances is terminated by H. > No I have never been saying that. I am claiming that the input to H(P,P) > never halts whether or not H terminates its simulation of this input. > We agree that P(P) halts. So now you're drawing a distinction between P(P) and "the input to H(P,P)". ThIs is nonsense.. > > > We can see that the input to H(P,P) never halts therefore H IS NOT WRONG. > > I think it's high time to wind up these threads. > > > I think that it is high time that people actually pay complete attention. > You can't complain about lack of attention.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-03 10:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <3IadnZ2CTqZnw5T8nZ2dnUU7-VudnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37549 |
On 8/3/2021 9:33 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 14:00:28 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >> On 8/3/2021 12:29 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> >>> You're trying to claim that H_Hat<H_Hat> doens't really halt because >>> the recursion of H instances is terminated by H. >> No I have never been saying that. I am claiming that the input to H(P,P) >> never halts whether or not H terminates its simulation of this input. >> > We agree that P(P) halts. > So now you're drawing a distinction between P(P) and "the input to H(P,P)". > ThIs is nonsense.. Try and find any error in (a)(b)(c)(d) on page 6 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation >>> >> We can see that the input to H(P,P) never halts therefore H IS NOT WRONG. >>> I think it's high time to wind up these threads. >>> >> I think that it is high time that people actually pay complete attention. >> > You can't complain about lack of attention. > -- 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 | 2021-08-03 11:11 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <sebtb9$plb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37551 |
On 2021-08-03 09:21, olcott wrote: > On 8/3/2021 9:33 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 14:00:28 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/3/2021 12:29 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>> >>>> You're trying to claim that H_Hat<H_Hat> doens't really halt because >>>> the recursion of H instances is terminated by H. >>> No I have never been saying that. I am claiming that the input to H(P,P) >>> never halts whether or not H terminates its simulation of this input. >>> >> We agree that P(P) halts. >> So now you're drawing a distinction between P(P) and "the input to >> H(P,P)". >> ThIs is nonsense.. > > Try and find any error in (a)(b)(c)(d) on page 6 > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation The error, which has been pointed out repeatedly, is in your (b). You claim "there are no control flow instructions in the execution trace that would escape the infinite recursion", but there *are* flow control instructions. But your trace is incomplete and skips over the call to B82 where these flow control instructions reside. The code at B82 is *part* of the computation performed by P. It *must* be included in any trace of P which purports to be a complete and honest trace. You don't seem to grasp the fact that *all* code executed by a particular computation from the moment the computation begins to the time it halts (assuming it halts) is part of that computation. It doesn't matter whether the code in question is shared by some other routine, or is operating system code or whatever. These are purely artificial distinctions which play no role in the theory of computation. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-03 14:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <dPGdnfUV6vjsBZT8nZ2dnUU7-V3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37553 |
On 8/3/2021 12:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-08-03 09:21, olcott wrote: >> On 8/3/2021 9:33 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 14:00:28 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/3/2021 12:29 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>> >>>>> You're trying to claim that H_Hat<H_Hat> doens't really halt because >>>>> the recursion of H instances is terminated by H. >>>> No I have never been saying that. I am claiming that the input to >>>> H(P,P) >>>> never halts whether or not H terminates its simulation of this input. >>>> >>> We agree that P(P) halts. >>> So now you're drawing a distinction between P(P) and "the input to >>> H(P,P)". >>> ThIs is nonsense.. >> >> Try and find any error in (a)(b)(c)(d) on page 6 >> >> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation > > > > The error, which has been pointed out repeatedly, is in your (b). > > You claim "there are no control flow instructions in the execution trace > that would escape the infinite recursion", but there *are* flow control > instructions. But your trace is incomplete and skips over the call to > B82 where these flow control instructions reside. > Whether H aborts its simulation of P or not P never reaches its final state. The conditional instructions are merely the aspect of H aborting its simulation of P. Because P never reaches its final state whether H aborts its simulation of P or not we know that P never halts. > The code at B82 is *part* of the computation performed by P. It *must* > be included in any trace of P which purports to be a complete and honest > trace. > > You don't seem to grasp the fact that *all* code executed by a > particular computation from the moment the computation begins to the > time it halts (assuming it halts) is part of that computation. It > doesn't matter whether the code in question is shared by some other > routine, or is operating system code or whatever. These are purely > artificial distinctions which play no role in the theory of computation. > > André > -- 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 | 2021-08-03 14:08 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <sec7nt$333$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37555 |
On 2021-08-03 13:26, olcott wrote: > On 8/3/2021 12:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2021-08-03 09:21, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/3/2021 9:33 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 14:00:28 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 8/3/2021 12:29 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> You're trying to claim that H_Hat<H_Hat> doens't really halt because >>>>>> the recursion of H instances is terminated by H. >>>>> No I have never been saying that. I am claiming that the input to >>>>> H(P,P) >>>>> never halts whether or not H terminates its simulation of this input. >>>>> >>>> We agree that P(P) halts. >>>> So now you're drawing a distinction between P(P) and "the input to >>>> H(P,P)". >>>> ThIs is nonsense.. >>> >>> Try and find any error in (a)(b)(c)(d) on page 6 >>> >>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation >> >> >> >> >> The error, which has been pointed out repeatedly, is in your (b). >> >> You claim "there are no control flow instructions in the execution >> trace that would escape the infinite recursion", but there *are* flow >> control instructions. But your trace is incomplete and skips over the >> call to B82 where these flow control instructions reside. >> > > Whether H aborts its simulation of P or not P never reaches its final > state. But H's simulation of P is *not* a computation. When we run H(P, P) the only computation being performed is H(P, P), and if H aborts its simulation of P(P), then control returns to H which then Halts. When we run P(P) as a computation, again, the only computation being performed is P(P). Any simulations performed by P are *not* computations, and when some simulation is aborted control returns to the outermost P which then halts. And the behaviour of the actual independent computation P determines the *only* correct answer to the question 'does P(P) halt?'. The question which H(P, P) is supposed to answer *isn't* about some internal simulation. It's supposed to answer a question about an actual computation, P(P) and we know that that computation halts. What occurs in some internal simulation isn't relevant to the answer to this question. > The conditional instructions are merely the aspect of H aborting its > simulation of P. Which then allows the *actual* computation being performed to halt. The halting problem is *only* concerned with actual computations. > Because P never reaches its final state whether H aborts its simulation > of P or not we know that P never halts. Again, the question being asked isn't concerned with the simulation but with the actual computation. The simulation is *part* of that computation. The fact that the simulation gets aborted is *also* part of the computation, and that allows the *whole* computation to halt. The halting problem isn't interested in some part of a computation, only the computation as a whole. >> The code at B82 is *part* of the computation performed by P. It *must* >> be included in any trace of P which purports to be a complete and >> honest trace. Again, if you stopped omitting a portion of your traces, things would be clearer to you. Remember that the halting problem is concerned with computations, not with subroutines. Since you insist on using C rather than actual Turing Machines, though, this minimally requires that your H and your P be *separate* programs. That means each one should have its own source file with its own main. Each should be compiled and linked separately. Your insistence on sticking everything into a single source file is a cheat which you need to abandon. H needs to take as input a complete *program*, not just some function which is part of the same source file as H. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-03 15:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <Ea2dnYUpZJLzNpT8nZ2dnUU78LXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37556 |
On 8/3/2021 3:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-08-03 13:26, olcott wrote: >> On 8/3/2021 12:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2021-08-03 09:21, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/3/2021 9:33 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 14:00:28 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 8/3/2021 12:29 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're trying to claim that H_Hat<H_Hat> doens't really halt because >>>>>>> the recursion of H instances is terminated by H. >>>>>> No I have never been saying that. I am claiming that the input to >>>>>> H(P,P) >>>>>> never halts whether or not H terminates its simulation of this input. >>>>>> >>>>> We agree that P(P) halts. >>>>> So now you're drawing a distinction between P(P) and "the input to >>>>> H(P,P)". >>>>> ThIs is nonsense.. >>>> >>>> Try and find any error in (a)(b)(c)(d) on page 6 >>>> >>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The error, which has been pointed out repeatedly, is in your (b). >>> >>> You claim "there are no control flow instructions in the execution >>> trace that would escape the infinite recursion", but there *are* flow >>> control instructions. But your trace is incomplete and skips over the >>> call to B82 where these flow control instructions reside. >>> >> >> Whether H aborts its simulation of P or not P never reaches its final >> state. > > But H's simulation of P is *not* a computation. > Sure it is. The pure simulation of a computation on its input is computationally equivalent to the direct execution of this same computation on its input. > When we run H(P, P) the only computation being performed is H(P, P), and > if H aborts its simulation of P(P), then control returns to H which then > Halts. > The job of a halt decider is to correctly predict the future behavior of its input. Because the input to H(P,P) does not transition to its final state whether or not H aborts the simulation of this input we know that this input never halts. In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem Because the P that halts is not: "a description of an arbitrary computer program" it is not in the scope of the Halting Problem. Only the input to P is in scope of the halting problem. > When we run P(P) as a computation, again, the only computation being > performed is P(P). Any simulations performed by P are *not* > computations, and when some simulation is aborted control returns to the > outermost P which then halts. And the behaviour of the actual > independent computation P determines the *only* correct answer to the > question 'does P(P) halt?'. > > The question which H(P, P) is supposed to answer *isn't* about some > internal simulation. It's supposed to answer a question about an actual > computation, P(P) and we know that that computation halts. What occurs > in some internal simulation isn't relevant to the answer to this question. > >> The conditional instructions are merely the aspect of H aborting its >> simulation of P. > > Which then allows the *actual* computation being performed to halt. The > halting problem is *only* concerned with actual computations. > >> Because P never reaches its final state whether H aborts its >> simulation of P or not we know that P never halts. > > Again, the question being asked isn't concerned with the simulation but > with the actual computation. The simulation is *part* of that > computation. The fact that the simulation gets aborted is *also* part of > the computation, and that allows the *whole* computation to halt. The > halting problem isn't interested in some part of a computation, only the > computation as a whole. > >>> The code at B82 is *part* of the computation performed by P. It >>> *must* be included in any trace of P which purports to be a complete >>> and honest trace. > > Again, if you stopped omitting a portion of your traces, things would be > clearer to you. > > Remember that the halting problem is concerned with computations, not > with subroutines. Since you insist on using C rather than actual Turing > Machines, though, this minimally requires that your H and your P be > *separate* programs. That means each one should have its own source file > with its own main. Each should be compiled and linked separately. Your > insistence on sticking everything into a single source file is a cheat > which you need to abandon. > > H needs to take as input a complete *program*, not just some function > which is part of the same source file as H. > > André > > -- 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 | 2021-08-03 14:56 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <secahd$l3q$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37558 |
On 2021-08-03 14:47, olcott wrote: > On 8/3/2021 3:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2021-08-03 13:26, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/3/2021 12:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2021-08-03 09:21, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 8/3/2021 9:33 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 14:00:28 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/3/2021 12:29 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You're trying to claim that H_Hat<H_Hat> doens't really halt >>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>> the recursion of H instances is terminated by H. >>>>>>> No I have never been saying that. I am claiming that the input to >>>>>>> H(P,P) >>>>>>> never halts whether or not H terminates its simulation of this >>>>>>> input. >>>>>>> >>>>>> We agree that P(P) halts. >>>>>> So now you're drawing a distinction between P(P) and "the input to >>>>>> H(P,P)". >>>>>> ThIs is nonsense.. >>>>> >>>>> Try and find any error in (a)(b)(c)(d) on page 6 >>>>> >>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The error, which has been pointed out repeatedly, is in your (b). >>>> >>>> You claim "there are no control flow instructions in the execution >>>> trace that would escape the infinite recursion", but there *are* >>>> flow control instructions. But your trace is incomplete and skips >>>> over the call to B82 where these flow control instructions reside. >>>> >>> >>> Whether H aborts its simulation of P or not P never reaches its final >>> state. >> >> But H's simulation of P is *not* a computation. >> > > Sure it is. > The pure simulation of a computation on its input is computationally > equivalent to the direct execution of this same computation on its input. No. It isn't. A computation is a free-standing, self-contained piece of code. When you run H(P, P) the computation P(P) isn't being computed. It's being evaluated. H(P, P) is the only computation being run in this case. And your H *doesn't* perform a pure simulation of its input, so we can't even talk about the simulation as being 'computationally equivalent' to some computation. >> When we run H(P, P) the only computation being performed is H(P, P), >> and if H aborts its simulation of P(P), then control returns to H >> which then Halts. >> > > The job of a halt decider is to correctly predict the future behavior of > its input. Because the input to H(P,P) does not transition to its final > state whether or not H aborts the simulation of this input we know that > this input never halts. > > In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of > determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and an > input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run > forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem > > Because the P that halts is not: "a description of an arbitrary computer > program" it is not in the scope of the Halting Problem. Only the input > to P is in scope of the halting problem. Here you're very confused. The "P that halts" *is* the computation which the input to H describes. A halt decider takes a description of an arbitrary program and answers *about the program described by that description*. The "input to P" isn't a computation. It's a description of a computation. Halting applies to actual computations, not to descriptions. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-03 16:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <zqKdnXqSUdOSMpT8nZ2dnUU7-f_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37559 |
On 8/3/2021 3:56 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-08-03 14:47, olcott wrote: >> On 8/3/2021 3:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2021-08-03 13:26, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/3/2021 12:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>> On 2021-08-03 09:21, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 8/3/2021 9:33 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>>>> On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 14:00:28 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 8/3/2021 12:29 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You're trying to claim that H_Hat<H_Hat> doens't really halt >>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>> the recursion of H instances is terminated by H. >>>>>>>> No I have never been saying that. I am claiming that the input >>>>>>>> to H(P,P) >>>>>>>> never halts whether or not H terminates its simulation of this >>>>>>>> input. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> We agree that P(P) halts. >>>>>>> So now you're drawing a distinction between P(P) and "the input >>>>>>> to H(P,P)". >>>>>>> ThIs is nonsense.. >>>>>> >>>>>> Try and find any error in (a)(b)(c)(d) on page 6 >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The error, which has been pointed out repeatedly, is in your (b). >>>>> >>>>> You claim "there are no control flow instructions in the execution >>>>> trace that would escape the infinite recursion", but there *are* >>>>> flow control instructions. But your trace is incomplete and skips >>>>> over the call to B82 where these flow control instructions reside. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Whether H aborts its simulation of P or not P never reaches its >>>> final state. >>> >>> But H's simulation of P is *not* a computation. >>> >> >> Sure it is. >> The pure simulation of a computation on its input is computationally >> equivalent to the direct execution of this same computation on its input. > > No. It isn't. A computation is a free-standing, self-contained piece of > code. When you run H(P, P) the computation P(P) isn't being computed. > It's being evaluated. H(P, P) is the only computation being run in this > case. > So you don't understand how UTMs work. > And your H *doesn't* perform a pure simulation of its input, so we can't > even talk about the simulation as being 'computationally equivalent' to > some computation. > The fact that the first seven instructions of P keep repeating while H is in pure simulation mode proves that H is doing pure simulation mode correctly. >>> When we run H(P, P) the only computation being performed is H(P, P), >>> and if H aborts its simulation of P(P), then control returns to H >>> which then Halts. >>> >> >> The job of a halt decider is to correctly predict the future behavior >> of its input. Because the input to H(P,P) does not transition to its >> final state whether or not H aborts the simulation of this input we >> know that this input never halts. >> >> In computability theory, the halting problem is the problem of >> determining, from a description of an arbitrary computer program and >> an input, whether the program will finish running, or continue to run >> forever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem >> >> Because the P that halts is not: "a description of an arbitrary >> computer program" it is not in the scope of the Halting Problem. Only >> the input to P is in scope of the halting problem. > > Here you're very confused. The "P that halts" *is* the computation which > the input to H describes. A halt decider takes a description of an > arbitrary program and answers *about the program described by that > description*. The "input to P" isn't a computation. It's a description > of a computation. Halting applies to actual computations, not to > descriptions. > > André > > The key point is that if it is not AN INPUT the it doesn't count. The simulation of inputs is not forbidden. -- 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 | 2021-08-03 15:26 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) |
| Message-ID | <seccad$o4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37560 |
On 2021-08-03 15:03, olcott wrote: > On 8/3/2021 3:56 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2021-08-03 14:47, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/3/2021 3:08 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>> On 2021-08-03 13:26, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 8/3/2021 12:11 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>>>>> On 2021-08-03 09:21, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 8/3/2021 9:33 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tuesday, 3 August 2021 at 14:00:28 UTC+1, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 8/3/2021 12:29 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You're trying to claim that H_Hat<H_Hat> doens't really halt >>>>>>>>>> because >>>>>>>>>> the recursion of H instances is terminated by H. >>>>>>>>> No I have never been saying that. I am claiming that the input >>>>>>>>> to H(P,P) >>>>>>>>> never halts whether or not H terminates its simulation of this >>>>>>>>> input. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We agree that P(P) halts. >>>>>>>> So now you're drawing a distinction between P(P) and "the input >>>>>>>> to H(P,P)". >>>>>>>> ThIs is nonsense.. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Try and find any error in (a)(b)(c)(d) on page 6 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The error, which has been pointed out repeatedly, is in your (b). >>>>>> >>>>>> You claim "there are no control flow instructions in the execution >>>>>> trace that would escape the infinite recursion", but there *are* >>>>>> flow control instructions. But your trace is incomplete and skips >>>>>> over the call to B82 where these flow control instructions reside. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Whether H aborts its simulation of P or not P never reaches its >>>>> final state. >>>> >>>> But H's simulation of P is *not* a computation. >>>> >>> >>> Sure it is. >>> The pure simulation of a computation on its input is computationally >>> equivalent to the direct execution of this same computation on its >>> input. >> >> No. It isn't. A computation is a free-standing, self-contained piece >> of code. When you run H(P, P) the computation P(P) isn't being >> computed. It's being evaluated. H(P, P) is the only computation being >> run in this case. >> > > So you don't understand how UTMs work. I'm well aware of how UTMs work. I am also aware that an x86 simulator is not the same thing as a UTM. >> And your H *doesn't* perform a pure simulation of its input, so we >> can't even talk about the simulation as being 'computationally >> equivalent' to some computation. >> > > The fact that the first seven instructions of P keep repeating while H > is in pure simulation mode proves that H is doing pure simulation mode > correctly. The problem is that your 'pure simulation mode' is a cheat. Your H and P *need* to be independent, self-contained programs. They need to both be compiled and linked separately resulting in two different executables. This means that the copy of H contained in P will be *distinct* from program H. It will be at an entirely different address and any code inside H which tells it to ignore its 'own code' will not result in it ignoring the H contained in P. That also means that any change in the "mode" in which the main H runs *cannot* have any effect on what the H contained in P does. Your 'pure simulation mode' is only valid as a test if it applies *only* to the behaviour of H, and not to the behaviour of the H contained inside P. If you change what the H inside P does, you are then talking about an *entirely different* computation which has no bearing on the halting behaviour of P. You can't evaluate whether P halts by considering what some modified version of P does, which is in effect what you are doing. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 23 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 21 22 [23] 24 25 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web