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 12 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 27 Next page →
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-27 00:48 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] |
| Message-ID | <87pmv4ab6r.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37079 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it > cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving > that this input never halts. Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt decider. You once claimed something "interesting" i.e. that you had "encoded all of the ... Linz Turing machine H that correctly decides halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" and you insisted that "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." Does that "Linz Turing machine H" accept or reject the "fully encoded input pair (H^, H^)", and what is the halting status if H^ when given H^ (encoded)? If, as now, H rejects (H^, H^) but H^ halts when given H^ then there was never anything interesting about what you were claiming, but it was at least about Turing machines and the proof you have fixated on. But you also said your TMs H and H^ are "exactly and precisely as in Linz", so really either (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt on input H^, or (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^ should be the case. So, come clean. Which was the case back then: (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt in input H^, or (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^, or (3) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^. Without the comfort blanket of your huge pile of junk x86 code, I suspect you won't dare say. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 20:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] |
| Message-ID | <k-OdnQ8yiKu2wWL9nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37108 |
On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >> that this input never halts. > > Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt decider. When you feed the system self-contradictory input you get an inconsistent result that can be used to refute Rice. > You > once claimed something "interesting" i.e. that you had > > "encoded all of the ... Linz Turing machine H that correctly decides > halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" > > and you insisted that > > "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz > specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing > Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." > > Does that "Linz Turing machine H" accept or reject the "fully encoded > input pair (H^, H^)", and what is the halting status if H^ when given H^ > (encoded)? If, as now, H rejects (H^, H^) but H^ halts when given H^ > then there was never anything interesting about what you were claiming, > but it was at least about Turing machines and the proof you have fixated > on. > > But you also said your TMs H and H^ are "exactly and precisely as in > Linz", so really either > > (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt on input H^, or > (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^ > > should be the case. So, come clean. Which was the case back then: > > (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt in input H^, or > (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^, or > (3) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^. > > Without the comfort blanket of your huge pile of junk x86 code, I > suspect you won't dare say. > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 19:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] |
| Message-ID | <dmKLI.16510$qL.15929@fx14.iad> |
| In reply to | #37113 |
On 7/26/21 6:06 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >>> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >>> that this input never halts. >> >> Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt decider. > > When you feed the system self-contradictory input you get an > inconsistent result that can be used to refute Rice. > You don't get inconsistent results, as if the results change from run to run then you have just proven that H isn't a computation, and thus not a decider. Also, H saying it can't give the right answer isn't giving the right answer, it is just admitting that it will be wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 22:44 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] |
| Message-ID | <87fsvy6rma.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37113 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >>> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >>> that this input never halts. >> Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt decider. > > When you feed the system self-contradictory input you get an > inconsistent result that can be used to refute Rice. Nonsense[1]. >> You >> once claimed something "interesting" i.e. that you had >> "encoded all of the ... Linz Turing machine H that correctly decides >> halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" >> and you insisted that >> "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz >> specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing >> Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." >> Does that "Linz Turing machine H" accept or reject the "fully encoded >> input pair (H^, H^)", and what is the halting status if H^ when given H^ >> (encoded)? No answer (of course). >> If, as now, H rejects (H^, H^) but H^ halts when given H^ >> then there was never anything interesting about what you were claiming, >> but it was at least about Turing machines and the proof you have fixated >> on. >> But you also said your TMs H and H^ are "exactly and precisely as in >> Linz", so really either >> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt on input H^, or >> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^ >> should be the case. So, come clean. Which was the case back then: >> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt in input H^, or >> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^, or >> (3) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^. No answer. >> Without the comfort blanket of your huge pile of junk x86 code, I >> suspect you won't dare say. As I thought. [1] I mean that literally. "the system" is a vague, undefined entity. No input is literally "self-contradictory", but even if we ignore that, you have never, even after 17 years of trying, been able to define what such inputs are. And you only get inconsistent results, when the decider is wrong. Lots of deciders will get that same apparently "self-contradictory" instance correct. Finally, "can be used to refute Rice" is laughably vague. I don't think this is a personal nonsense-density record for you, but it must be a contender. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 17:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <JNadnQD-Ofr-SJz8nZ2dnUU7-XHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37108 |
On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >> that this input never halts. > > Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt decider. You > once claimed something "interesting" i.e. that you had > > "encoded all of the ... Linz Turing machine H that correctly decides > halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" > > and you insisted that > > "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz > specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing > Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." > > Does that "Linz Turing machine H" accept or reject the "fully encoded > input pair (H^, H^)", and what is the halting status if H^ when given H^ > (encoded)? If, as now, H rejects (H^, H^) but H^ halts when given H^ > then there was never anything interesting about what you were claiming, > but it was at least about Turing machines and the proof you have fixated > on. > > But you also said your TMs H and H^ are "exactly and precisely as in > Linz", so really either > > (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt on input H^, or > (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^ > > should be the case. So, come clean. Which was the case back then: > > (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt in input H^, or > (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^, or > (3) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^. > > Without the comfort blanket of your huge pile of junk x86 code, I > suspect you won't dare say. > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ if M applied to wM halts, and Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if M applied to wM does not halt When we apply Ĥ to its own TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ While the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx remains in pure simulator mode it specifies a never ending cycle from qx to q0. As you already (generically) agreed: On 5/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> Truism: >> Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops >> it at some point specifies infinite execution. > > Any algorithm that implements this truism is, of course, a halting > decider. Therefore: when the simulation of the input to Ĥ.qx must be aborted to prevent the infinite execution of Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ this proves that the input to Ĥ.qx never halts. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 15:22 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <wMkMI.80412$VU3.74342@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #37224 |
On 7/28/21 3:08 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >>> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >>> that this input never halts. >> >> Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt decider. You >> once claimed something "interesting" i.e. that you had >> >> "encoded all of the ... Linz Turing machine H that correctly decides >> halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" >> >> and you insisted that >> >> "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz >> specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing >> Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." >> >> Does that "Linz Turing machine H" accept or reject the "fully encoded >> input pair (H^, H^)", and what is the halting status if H^ when given H^ >> (encoded)? If, as now, H rejects (H^, H^) but H^ halts when given H^ >> then there was never anything interesting about what you were claiming, >> but it was at least about Turing machines and the proof you have fixated >> on. >> >> But you also said your TMs H and H^ are "exactly and precisely as in >> Linz", so really either >> >> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt on input H^, or >> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^ >> >> should be the case. So, come clean. Which was the case back then: >> >> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt in input H^, or >> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^, or >> (3) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^. >> >> Without the comfort blanket of your huge pile of junk x86 code, I >> suspect you won't dare say. >> > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ > if M applied to wM halts, and > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if M applied to wM does not halt > > When we apply Ĥ to its own TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ > > While the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx remains in pure simulator mode > it specifies a never ending cycle from qx to q0. Right, and such an H fails to answer to H(H^,H^) so it has failed before we even can check if it got the right answer. Once you define an H that can answer H*H^,H^) then H^(H^) isn't a never ending cycle. You confuse these two machine AGAIN. I think you are just to dumb to understand they are different. You MUST use the H^ that is derived from the H that you are claiming to be the possible halt decider, and that H MUST be able to answer H(H^,H^) which means that H can't be a 'pure simulator', and you must include in your analysis that it isn't. To say H is a pure simulator when it isn't is LYING, giving you a FALSE premise and thus UNSOUND logic. FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 18:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <UZ-dnRVtspbte5z8nZ2dnUU7-LnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37225 |
On 7/28/2021 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/28/21 3:08 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >>>> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >>>> that this input never halts. >>> >>> Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt decider. You >>> once claimed something "interesting" i.e. that you had >>> >>> "encoded all of the ... Linz Turing machine H that correctly decides >>> halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" >>> >>> and you insisted that >>> >>> "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz >>> specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing >>> Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." >>> >>> Does that "Linz Turing machine H" accept or reject the "fully encoded >>> input pair (H^, H^)", and what is the halting status if H^ when given H^ >>> (encoded)? If, as now, H rejects (H^, H^) but H^ halts when given H^ >>> then there was never anything interesting about what you were claiming, >>> but it was at least about Turing machines and the proof you have fixated >>> on. >>> >>> But you also said your TMs H and H^ are "exactly and precisely as in >>> Linz", so really either >>> >>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt on input H^, or >>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^ >>> >>> should be the case. So, come clean. Which was the case back then: >>> >>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt in input H^, or >>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^, or >>> (3) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^. >>> >>> Without the comfort blanket of your huge pile of junk x86 code, I >>> suspect you won't dare say. >>> >> >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >> if M applied to wM halts, and >> >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> if M applied to wM does not halt >> >> When we apply Ĥ to its own TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ >> >> While the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx remains in pure simulator mode >> it specifies a never ending cycle from qx to q0. > > Right, and such an H fails to answer to H(H^,H^) so it has failed before > we even can check if it got the right answer. > Such an Ĥ uses this as its basis to know that its input unequivocally specifies infinite execution that must be aborted. Every input to a simulating halt decider that only stops running when its simulation is aborted unequivocally specifies a computation that never halts. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 20:52 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <NBpMI.35779$rr3.34656@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #37227 |
On 7/28/21 4:21 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/28/2021 5:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 7/28/21 3:08 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >>>>> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >>>>> that this input never halts. >>>> >>>> Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt decider. You >>>> once claimed something "interesting" i.e. that you had >>>> >>>> "encoded all of the ... Linz Turing machine H that correctly >>>> decides >>>> halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" >>>> >>>> and you insisted that >>>> >>>> "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz >>>> specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing >>>> Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." >>>> >>>> Does that "Linz Turing machine H" accept or reject the "fully encoded >>>> input pair (H^, H^)", and what is the halting status if H^ when >>>> given H^ >>>> (encoded)? If, as now, H rejects (H^, H^) but H^ halts when given H^ >>>> then there was never anything interesting about what you were claiming, >>>> but it was at least about Turing machines and the proof you have >>>> fixated >>>> on. >>>> >>>> But you also said your TMs H and H^ are "exactly and precisely as in >>>> Linz", so really either >>>> >>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt on input H^, or >>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^ >>>> >>>> should be the case. So, come clean. Which was the case back then: >>>> >>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt in input H^, or >>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^, or >>>> (3) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^. >>>> >>>> Without the comfort blanket of your huge pile of junk x86 code, I >>>> suspect you won't dare say. >>>> >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>> >>> When we apply Ĥ to its own TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>> >>> While the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx remains in pure simulator mode >>> it specifies a never ending cycle from qx to q0. >> >> Right, and such an H fails to answer to H(H^,H^) so it has failed before >> we even can check if it got the right answer. >> > > Such an Ĥ uses this as its basis to know that its input unequivocally > specifies infinite execution that must be aborted. > > Every input to a simulating halt decider that only stops running when > its simulation is aborted unequivocally specifies a computation that > never halts. > As you have been told that is the wrong definition. The RIGHT definition is that if the machine represented by that input reaches a halting state in a finite nunber of steps. You could also say if this input was given to a compatible UTM, then if that simulation would halt in a finite number of step the computation is Halting. You H is NOT the equivalent of a UTM, as it will abort its simulation under certain conditions, and it has been shown that it does abort some finite machine before they reach their final halting state. WRONG DEFINITION, WRONG ANSWWER. INVALID and UNSOUND logic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-29 00:22 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <871r7i6n2u.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37224 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >>> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >>> that this input never halts. >> Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt decider. You >> once claimed something "interesting" i.e. that you had >> "encoded all of the ... Linz Turing machine H that correctly decides >> halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" >> and you insisted that >> "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz >> specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing >> Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." >> Does that "Linz Turing machine H" accept or reject the "fully encoded >> input pair (H^, H^)", and what is the halting status if H^ when given H^ >> (encoded)? If, as now, H rejects (H^, H^) but H^ halts when given H^ >> then there was never anything interesting about what you were claiming, >> but it was at least about Turing machines and the proof you have fixated >> on. >> But you also said your TMs H and H^ are "exactly and precisely as in >> Linz", so really either >> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt on input H^, or >> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^ >> should be the case. So, come clean. Which was the case back then: >> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt in input H^, or >> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^, or >> (3) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^. >> Without the comfort blanket of your huge pile of junk x86 code, I >> suspect you won't dare say. > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ > if M applied to wM halts, and > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if M applied to wM does not halt > > When we apply Ĥ to its own TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ If you didn't understand the question, I might be able to explain it some other way. If you are just avoiding answering it, then just say so and I'll stop asking. > While the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx remains in pure simulator > mode it specifies a never ending cycle from qx to q0. The question seems simple to me. Can I help you understand it? > As you already (generically) agreed: > > On 5/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> Truism: >>> Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops >>> it at some point specifies infinite execution. >> >> Any algorithm that implements this truism is, of course, a halting >> decider. Unfortunately I can't answer the question for you. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 18:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <OqKdnROLKJ9CdJz8nZ2dnUU7-avNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37228 |
On 7/28/2021 6:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >>>> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >>>> that this input never halts. >>> Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt decider. You >>> once claimed something "interesting" i.e. that you had >>> "encoded all of the ... Linz Turing machine H that correctly decides >>> halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" >>> and you insisted that >>> "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz >>> specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing >>> Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." >>> Does that "Linz Turing machine H" accept or reject the "fully encoded >>> input pair (H^, H^)", and what is the halting status if H^ when given H^ >>> (encoded)? If, as now, H rejects (H^, H^) but H^ halts when given H^ >>> then there was never anything interesting about what you were claiming, >>> but it was at least about Turing machines and the proof you have fixated >>> on. >>> But you also said your TMs H and H^ are "exactly and precisely as in >>> Linz", so really either >>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt on input H^, or >>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^ >>> should be the case. So, come clean. Which was the case back then: >>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt in input H^, or >>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^, or >>> (3) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^. >>> Without the comfort blanket of your huge pile of junk x86 code, I >>> suspect you won't dare say. >> >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >> if M applied to wM halts, and >> >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> if M applied to wM does not halt >> >> When we apply Ĥ to its own TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ > > If you didn't understand the question, I might be able to explain it > some other way. If you are just avoiding answering it, then just say so > and I'll stop asking. > I totally ignored the convoluted mess of your question and instead proved how we know that Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) correctly decides that its input never halts. Once we know how this is correct every question about it becomes moot. Every simulation that would never stop unless its simulating halt decider stops it at some point specifies infinite execution. This remains true for: Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) Ĥ( ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) only stops because its simulating halt decider stops it at some point. >> While the simulating halt decider at Ĥ.qx remains in pure simulator >> mode it specifies a never ending cycle from qx to q0. > > The question seems simple to me. Can I help you understand it? > >> As you already (generically) agreed: >> >> On 5/11/2021 11:10 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> Truism: >>>> Every simulation that would never stop unless Halts() stops >>>> it at some point specifies infinite execution. >>> >>> Any algorithm that implements this truism is, of course, a halting >>> decider. > > Unfortunately I can't answer the question for you. > -- 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 | 2021-07-29 01:58 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <87k0la542c.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37231 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 7/28/2021 6:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >>>>> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >>>>> that this input never halts. >>>> Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt decider. You >>>> once claimed something "interesting" i.e. that you had >>>> "encoded all of the ... Linz Turing machine H that correctly decides >>>> halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" >>>> and you insisted that >>>> "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz >>>> specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing >>>> Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." >>>> Does that "Linz Turing machine H" accept or reject the "fully encoded >>>> input pair (H^, H^)", and what is the halting status if H^ when given H^ >>>> (encoded)? If, as now, H rejects (H^, H^) but H^ halts when given H^ >>>> then there was never anything interesting about what you were claiming, >>>> but it was at least about Turing machines and the proof you have fixated >>>> on. >>>> But you also said your TMs H and H^ are "exactly and precisely as in >>>> Linz", so really either >>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt on input H^, or >>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^ >>>> should be the case. So, come clean. Which was the case back then: >>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt in input H^, or >>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^, or >>>> (3) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^. >>>> Without the comfort blanket of your huge pile of junk x86 code, I >>>> suspect you won't dare say. >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>> >>> When we apply Ĥ to its own TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ >> If you didn't understand the question, I might be able to explain it >> some other way. If you are just avoiding answering it, then just say so >> and I'll stop asking. > > I totally ignored the convoluted mess of your question... Would you like to know what I was asking, or do you just want to keep posting stuff for your entertainment? It's simpler for me if you are not interested in knowing what I was asking, and I think it helps other readers form an opinion as well. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 20:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <1NidnVPZ-NHDl5_8nZ2dnUU7-enNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37236 |
On 7/28/2021 7:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 7/28/2021 6:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >>>>>> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >>>>>> that this input never halts. >>>>> Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt decider. You >>>>> once claimed something "interesting" i.e. that you had >>>>> "encoded all of the ... Linz Turing machine H that correctly decides >>>>> halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" >>>>> and you insisted that >>>>> "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz >>>>> specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing >>>>> Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." >>>>> Does that "Linz Turing machine H" accept or reject the "fully encoded >>>>> input pair (H^, H^)", and what is the halting status if H^ when given H^ >>>>> (encoded)? If, as now, H rejects (H^, H^) but H^ halts when given H^ >>>>> then there was never anything interesting about what you were claiming, >>>>> but it was at least about Turing machines and the proof you have fixated >>>>> on. >>>>> But you also said your TMs H and H^ are "exactly and precisely as in >>>>> Linz", so really either >>>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt on input H^, or >>>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^ >>>>> should be the case. So, come clean. Which was the case back then: >>>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt in input H^, or >>>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^, or >>>>> (3) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^. >>>>> Without the comfort blanket of your huge pile of junk x86 code, I >>>>> suspect you won't dare say. >>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>> >>>> When we apply Ĥ to its own TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>> If you didn't understand the question, I might be able to explain it >>> some other way. If you are just avoiding answering it, then just say so >>> and I'll stop asking. >> >> I totally ignored the convoluted mess of your question... > > Would you like to know what I was asking, or do you just want to keep > posting stuff for your entertainment? It's simpler for me if you are > not interested in knowing what I was asking, and I think it helps other > readers form an opinion as well. > It was just another one of your endless dishonest dodges as can be seen above This quote proves you are clueless: "H rejects (H^, H^)" The freaking question at the end of the proof is what happens when Ĥ is applied to its own Turing machine description. The freaking question at the end of the proof is what happens when Ĥ is applied to its own Turing machine description. The freaking question at the end of the proof is what happens when Ĥ is applied to its own Turing machine description. Every simulation that would never stop unless its simulating halt decider stops it at some point specifies infinite execution. This remains true for: Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) Ĥ( ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) only stops because its simulating halt decider stops it at some point. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 20:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <6GpMI.92779$Vv6.71152@fx45.iad> |
| In reply to | #37237 |
On 7/28/21 6:54 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/28/2021 7:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 7/28/2021 6:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >>>>>>> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >>>>>>> that this input never halts. >>>>>> Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt >>>>>> decider. You >>>>>> once claimed something "interesting" i.e. that you had >>>>>> "encoded all of the ... Linz Turing machine H that correctly >>>>>> decides >>>>>> halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" >>>>>> and you insisted that >>>>>> "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the >>>>>> Linz >>>>>> specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing >>>>>> Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." >>>>>> Does that "Linz Turing machine H" accept or reject the "fully encoded >>>>>> input pair (H^, H^)", and what is the halting status if H^ when >>>>>> given H^ >>>>>> (encoded)? If, as now, H rejects (H^, H^) but H^ halts when given H^ >>>>>> then there was never anything interesting about what you were >>>>>> claiming, >>>>>> but it was at least about Turing machines and the proof you have >>>>>> fixated >>>>>> on. >>>>>> But you also said your TMs H and H^ are "exactly and precisely as in >>>>>> Linz", so really either >>>>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt on input H^, or >>>>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^ >>>>>> should be the case. So, come clean. Which was the case back then: >>>>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt in input H^, or >>>>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^, or >>>>>> (3) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^. >>>>>> Without the comfort blanket of your huge pile of junk x86 code, I >>>>>> suspect you won't dare say. >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>> >>>>> When we apply Ĥ to its own TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>> If you didn't understand the question, I might be able to explain it >>>> some other way. If you are just avoiding answering it, then just >>>> say so >>>> and I'll stop asking. >>> >>> I totally ignored the convoluted mess of your question... >> >> Would you like to know what I was asking, or do you just want to keep >> posting stuff for your entertainment? It's simpler for me if you are >> not interested in knowing what I was asking, and I think it helps other >> readers form an opinion as well. >> > > It was just another one of your endless dishonest dodges as can be seen > above This quote proves you are clueless: "H rejects (H^, H^)" > > The freaking question at the end of the proof is what happens when Ĥ is > applied to its own Turing machine description. > > The freaking question at the end of the proof is what happens when Ĥ is > applied to its own Turing machine description. > > The freaking question at the end of the proof is what happens when Ĥ is > applied to its own Turing machine description. > > Every simulation that would never stop unless its simulating halt > decider stops it at some point specifies infinite execution. > This remains true for: Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) > > Ĥ( ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) only stops because its simulating halt decider stops it at some > point. > WRONG. H^(H^) Halts because the copy of the algorithm of H when given the input H^(H^) decided that H^(H^) was non-halting by simulating that COPY and aborting its simulation of THAT COPY. The actual H^ machine was NEVER aborted, because it was never being simulated, just run.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 01:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <87sfzw3ao1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37237 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 7/28/2021 7:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 7/28/2021 6:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >>>>>>> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >>>>>>> that this input never halts. >>>>>> Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt decider. You >>>>>> once claimed something "interesting" i.e. that you had >>>>>> "encoded all of the ... Linz Turing machine H that correctly decides >>>>>> halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" >>>>>> and you insisted that >>>>>> "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz >>>>>> specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing >>>>>> Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." >>>>>> Does that "Linz Turing machine H" accept or reject the "fully encoded >>>>>> input pair (H^, H^)", and what is the halting status if H^ when given H^ >>>>>> (encoded)? If, as now, H rejects (H^, H^) but H^ halts when given H^ >>>>>> then there was never anything interesting about what you were claiming, >>>>>> but it was at least about Turing machines and the proof you have fixated >>>>>> on. >>>>>> But you also said your TMs H and H^ are "exactly and precisely as in >>>>>> Linz", so really either >>>>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt on input H^, or >>>>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^ >>>>>> should be the case. So, come clean. Which was the case back then: >>>>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt in input H^, or >>>>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^, or >>>>>> (3) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^. >>>>>> Without the comfort blanket of your huge pile of junk x86 code, I >>>>>> suspect you won't dare say. >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>> >>>>> When we apply Ĥ to its own TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>> If you didn't understand the question, I might be able to explain it >>>> some other way. If you are just avoiding answering it, then just say so >>>> and I'll stop asking. >>> >>> I totally ignored the convoluted mess of your question... >> Would you like to know what I was asking, or do you just want to keep >> posting stuff for your entertainment? It's simpler for me if you are >> not interested in knowing what I was asking, and I think it helps other >> readers form an opinion as well. > > It was just another one of your endless dishonest dodges as can be > seen above This quote proves you are clueless: "H rejects (H^, H^)" You don't want to answer the question it seems. OK. > Ĥ( ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) only stops because its simulating halt decider stops it at > some point. But you will answer part of it. You are saying that case (1) does not apply. Now if you were brave enough to say whether H accepts or rejects the string (H^,H^) we'd know if case (2) or case (3) applies, and you'd have answered the question you appear to find troublesome. You've been dodging this detail for monts. You claimed, more than two years ago, to have "an H that decides (Ĥ, Ĥ)" but you have avoided saying what that decision is ever since. (I talking about the "actual Turing" machines here, not the walked-back claims about x86 code.) This is what you said when I asked: || (1) What is the decision -- halts, or does not halt? | | Yes it is one of those. | || (2) Do you claim that the decision is the correct one? | | It is easily verifiably correct. and I am still asking. Does H accept or reject when given (H^,H^) on the tape? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-29 20:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <7oKdnTjx4IC20p78nZ2dnUU7-TvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37305 |
On 7/29/2021 7:30 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 7/28/2021 7:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 7/28/2021 6:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >>>>>>>> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >>>>>>>> that this input never halts. >>>>>>> Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt decider. You >>>>>>> once claimed something "interesting" i.e. that you had >>>>>>> "encoded all of the ... Linz Turing machine H that correctly decides >>>>>>> halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" >>>>>>> and you insisted that >>>>>>> "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz >>>>>>> specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing >>>>>>> Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." >>>>>>> Does that "Linz Turing machine H" accept or reject the "fully encoded >>>>>>> input pair (H^, H^)", and what is the halting status if H^ when given H^ >>>>>>> (encoded)? If, as now, H rejects (H^, H^) but H^ halts when given H^ >>>>>>> then there was never anything interesting about what you were claiming, >>>>>>> but it was at least about Turing machines and the proof you have fixated >>>>>>> on. >>>>>>> But you also said your TMs H and H^ are "exactly and precisely as in >>>>>>> Linz", so really either >>>>>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt on input H^, or >>>>>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^ >>>>>>> should be the case. So, come clean. Which was the case back then: >>>>>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt in input H^, or >>>>>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^, or >>>>>>> (3) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^. >>>>>>> Without the comfort blanket of your huge pile of junk x86 code, I >>>>>>> suspect you won't dare say. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>> >>>>>> When we apply Ĥ to its own TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>> If you didn't understand the question, I might be able to explain it >>>>> some other way. If you are just avoiding answering it, then just say so >>>>> and I'll stop asking. >>>> >>>> I totally ignored the convoluted mess of your question... >>> Would you like to know what I was asking, or do you just want to keep >>> posting stuff for your entertainment? It's simpler for me if you are >>> not interested in knowing what I was asking, and I think it helps other >>> readers form an opinion as well. >> >> It was just another one of your endless dishonest dodges as can be >> seen above This quote proves you are clueless: "H rejects (H^, H^)" > > You don't want to answer the question it seems. OK. > >> Ĥ( ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) only stops because its simulating halt decider stops it at >> some point. > > But you will answer part of it. You are saying that case (1) does not > apply. None of the cases apply because you are not following the last step of the proof where no H is involved. The proof only asks what happens when Ĥ is applied to its own TM description: ⟨Ĥ⟩. Can you understand that I just corrected you? Can you understand that I just corrected you? Can you understand that I just corrected you? Can we start talking about the last step of the actual proof? Can we start talking about the last step of the actual proof? Can we start talking about the last step of the actual proof? > Now if you were brave enough to say whether H accepts or rejects > the string (H^,H^) we'd know if case (2) or case (3) applies, and you'd > have answered the question you appear to find troublesome. > > You've been dodging this detail for monts. You claimed, more than two > years ago, to have "an H that decides (Ĥ, Ĥ)" but you have avoided > saying what that decision is ever since. (I talking about the "actual > Turing" machines here, not the walked-back claims about x86 code.) This > is what you said when I asked: > > || (1) What is the decision -- halts, or does not halt? > | > | Yes it is one of those. > | > || (2) Do you claim that the decision is the correct one? > | > | It is easily verifiably correct. > > and I am still asking. Does H accept or reject when given (H^,H^) on > the tape? > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-29 18:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <sdvjjd$24o$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37307 |
On 7/29/21 6:00 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/29/2021 7:30 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 7/28/2021 7:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 7/28/2021 6:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >>>>>>>>> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >>>>>>>>> that this input never halts. >>>>>>>> Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt >>>>>>>> decider. You >>>>>>>> once claimed something "interesting" i.e. that you had >>>>>>>> "encoded all of the ... Linz Turing machine H that >>>>>>>> correctly decides >>>>>>>> halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" >>>>>>>> and you insisted that >>>>>>>> "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting >>>>>>>> the Linz >>>>>>>> specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of >>>>>>>> Turing >>>>>>>> Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." >>>>>>>> Does that "Linz Turing machine H" accept or reject the "fully >>>>>>>> encoded >>>>>>>> input pair (H^, H^)", and what is the halting status if H^ when >>>>>>>> given H^ >>>>>>>> (encoded)? If, as now, H rejects (H^, H^) but H^ halts when >>>>>>>> given H^ >>>>>>>> then there was never anything interesting about what you were >>>>>>>> claiming, >>>>>>>> but it was at least about Turing machines and the proof you have >>>>>>>> fixated >>>>>>>> on. >>>>>>>> But you also said your TMs H and H^ are "exactly and precisely >>>>>>>> as in >>>>>>>> Linz", so really either >>>>>>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt on input H^, or >>>>>>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^ >>>>>>>> should be the case. So, come clean. Which was the case back then: >>>>>>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt in input H^, or >>>>>>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^, or >>>>>>>> (3) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^. >>>>>>>> Without the comfort blanket of your huge pile of junk x86 code, I >>>>>>>> suspect you won't dare say. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When we apply Ĥ to its own TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>> If you didn't understand the question, I might be able to explain it >>>>>> some other way. If you are just avoiding answering it, then just >>>>>> say so >>>>>> and I'll stop asking. >>>>> >>>>> I totally ignored the convoluted mess of your question... >>>> Would you like to know what I was asking, or do you just want to keep >>>> posting stuff for your entertainment? It's simpler for me if you are >>>> not interested in knowing what I was asking, and I think it helps other >>>> readers form an opinion as well. >>> >>> It was just another one of your endless dishonest dodges as can be >>> seen above This quote proves you are clueless: "H rejects (H^, H^)" >> >> You don't want to answer the question it seems. OK. >> >>> Ĥ( ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) only stops because its simulating halt decider stops it at >>> some point. >> >> But you will answer part of it. You are saying that case (1) does not >> apply. > > None of the cases apply because you are not following the last step of > the proof where no H is involved. The proof only asks what happens when > Ĥ is applied to its own TM description: ⟨Ĥ⟩. > > Can you understand that I just corrected you? > Can you understand that I just corrected you? > Can you understand that I just corrected you? > > Can we start talking about the last step of the actual proof? > Can we start talking about the last step of the actual proof? > Can we start talking about the last step of the actual proof? But H^ includes a COPY of H that MUST do exactly as H would do. If we can't copy H, then H can't be an equivalent of a Turing Machine and your whole proof fails. FAIL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 02:52 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <875yws36vt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37307 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 7/29/2021 7:30 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 7/28/2021 7:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 7/28/2021 6:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >>>>>>>>> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >>>>>>>>> that this input never halts. >>>>>>>> Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt decider. You >>>>>>>> once claimed something "interesting" i.e. that you had >>>>>>>> "encoded all of the ... Linz Turing machine H that correctly decides >>>>>>>> halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" >>>>>>>> and you insisted that >>>>>>>> "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz >>>>>>>> specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing >>>>>>>> Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." >>>>>>>> Does that "Linz Turing machine H" accept or reject the "fully encoded >>>>>>>> input pair (H^, H^)", and what is the halting status if H^ when given H^ >>>>>>>> (encoded)? If, as now, H rejects (H^, H^) but H^ halts when given H^ >>>>>>>> then there was never anything interesting about what you were claiming, >>>>>>>> but it was at least about Turing machines and the proof you have fixated >>>>>>>> on. >>>>>>>> But you also said your TMs H and H^ are "exactly and precisely as in >>>>>>>> Linz", so really either >>>>>>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt on input H^, or >>>>>>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^ >>>>>>>> should be the case. So, come clean. Which was the case back then: >>>>>>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt in input H^, or >>>>>>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^, or >>>>>>>> (3) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^. >>>>>>>> Without the comfort blanket of your huge pile of junk x86 code, I >>>>>>>> suspect you won't dare say. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When we apply Ĥ to its own TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>> If you didn't understand the question, I might be able to explain it >>>>>> some other way. If you are just avoiding answering it, then just say so >>>>>> and I'll stop asking. >>>>> >>>>> I totally ignored the convoluted mess of your question... >>>> Would you like to know what I was asking, or do you just want to keep >>>> posting stuff for your entertainment? It's simpler for me if you are >>>> not interested in knowing what I was asking, and I think it helps other >>>> readers form an opinion as well. >>> >>> It was just another one of your endless dishonest dodges as can be >>> seen above This quote proves you are clueless: "H rejects (H^, H^)" >> You don't want to answer the question it seems. OK. >> >>> Ĥ( ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) only stops because its simulating halt decider stops it at >>> some point. >> But you will answer part of it. You are saying that case (1) does not >> apply. > > None of the cases apply because you are not following the last step of > the proof where no H is involved. H either does or does not accept the string in question. H is a decider as defined by Linz so it either accepts or it reject no matter what the input is. You can answer the question, even if you don't see how it matters yet. That's what people engaging in honest dialogue do. > The proof only asks what happens when > Ĥ is applied to its own TM description: ⟨Ĥ⟩. Yes, but what happens depends on the answer to my question. You will see that if you make it to the end of this reply. And anyway, you brought it up. I am just trying to get you to clarify something you've been avoiding for years: ||| I have proven that this argument is not valid by making an H that ||| decides (Ĥ, Ĥ). || || (1) What is the decision -- halts, or does not halt? | | Yes it is one of those. > Can you understand that I just corrected you? Don't be silly. You are simply avoiding answering a simple question as you have been doing for more than two years. You made a claim the H decides (Ĥ, Ĥ) and I am just asking for that decision. > Can we start talking about the last step of the actual proof? I am trying to. The last step is what Ĥ(⟨Ĥ⟩) does: Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* ... As you can see, that depends on the answer to my question. The configurations that follow that last ⊢* are those determined by what that part of Ĥ that is identical to H does on input (⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩). So does the ... lead to Ĥ.qn or Ĥ.qy? If you don't like my wording using H, does the part of Ĥ that is identical to H transition to Ĥ.qn or Ĥ.qy? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-29 21:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <3sqdnTyxjJqrwp78nZ2dnUU7-IWdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37315 |
On 7/29/2021 8:52 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 7/29/2021 7:30 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 7/28/2021 7:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/28/2021 6:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >>>>>>>>>> that this input never halts. >>>>>>>>> Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt decider. You >>>>>>>>> once claimed something "interesting" i.e. that you had >>>>>>>>> "encoded all of the ... Linz Turing machine H that correctly decides >>>>>>>>> halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" >>>>>>>>> and you insisted that >>>>>>>>> "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz >>>>>>>>> specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing >>>>>>>>> Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." >>>>>>>>> Does that "Linz Turing machine H" accept or reject the "fully encoded >>>>>>>>> input pair (H^, H^)", and what is the halting status if H^ when given H^ >>>>>>>>> (encoded)? If, as now, H rejects (H^, H^) but H^ halts when given H^ >>>>>>>>> then there was never anything interesting about what you were claiming, >>>>>>>>> but it was at least about Turing machines and the proof you have fixated >>>>>>>>> on. >>>>>>>>> But you also said your TMs H and H^ are "exactly and precisely as in >>>>>>>>> Linz", so really either >>>>>>>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt on input H^, or >>>>>>>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^ >>>>>>>>> should be the case. So, come clean. Which was the case back then: >>>>>>>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt in input H^, or >>>>>>>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^, or >>>>>>>>> (3) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^. >>>>>>>>> Without the comfort blanket of your huge pile of junk x86 code, I >>>>>>>>> suspect you won't dare say. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When we apply Ĥ to its own TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>> If you didn't understand the question, I might be able to explain it >>>>>>> some other way. If you are just avoiding answering it, then just say so >>>>>>> and I'll stop asking. >>>>>> >>>>>> I totally ignored the convoluted mess of your question... >>>>> Would you like to know what I was asking, or do you just want to keep >>>>> posting stuff for your entertainment? It's simpler for me if you are >>>>> not interested in knowing what I was asking, and I think it helps other >>>>> readers form an opinion as well. >>>> >>>> It was just another one of your endless dishonest dodges as can be >>>> seen above This quote proves you are clueless: "H rejects (H^, H^)" >>> You don't want to answer the question it seems. OK. >>> >>>> Ĥ( ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) only stops because its simulating halt decider stops it at >>>> some point. >>> But you will answer part of it. You are saying that case (1) does not >>> apply. >> >> None of the cases apply because you are not following the last step of >> the proof where no H is involved. > > H either does or does not accept the string in question. I don't know and I don't care it is a side issue not related to the actual proof. Can we change the subject to the actual proof please? -- 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 | 2021-07-30 12:39 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <87o8ak115r.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37318 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 7/29/2021 8:52 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 7/29/2021 7:30 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 7/28/2021 7:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/28/2021 6:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >>>>>>>>>>> that this input never halts. >>>>>>>>>> Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt decider. You >>>>>>>>>> once claimed something "interesting" i.e. that you had >>>>>>>>>> "encoded all of the ... Linz Turing machine H that correctly decides >>>>>>>>>> halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" >>>>>>>>>> and you insisted that >>>>>>>>>> "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz >>>>>>>>>> specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing >>>>>>>>>> Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." >>>>>>>>>> Does that "Linz Turing machine H" accept or reject the "fully encoded >>>>>>>>>> input pair (H^, H^)", and what is the halting status if H^ when given H^ >>>>>>>>>> (encoded)? If, as now, H rejects (H^, H^) but H^ halts when given H^ >>>>>>>>>> then there was never anything interesting about what you were claiming, >>>>>>>>>> but it was at least about Turing machines and the proof you have fixated >>>>>>>>>> on. >>>>>>>>>> But you also said your TMs H and H^ are "exactly and precisely as in >>>>>>>>>> Linz", so really either >>>>>>>>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt on input H^, or >>>>>>>>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^ >>>>>>>>>> should be the case. So, come clean. Which was the case back then: >>>>>>>>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt in input H^, or >>>>>>>>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^, or >>>>>>>>>> (3) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^. >>>>>>>>>> Without the comfort blanket of your huge pile of junk x86 code, I >>>>>>>>>> suspect you won't dare say. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When we apply Ĥ to its own TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>> If you didn't understand the question, I might be able to explain it >>>>>>>> some other way. If you are just avoiding answering it, then just say so >>>>>>>> and I'll stop asking. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I totally ignored the convoluted mess of your question... >>>>>> Would you like to know what I was asking, or do you just want to keep >>>>>> posting stuff for your entertainment? It's simpler for me if you are >>>>>> not interested in knowing what I was asking, and I think it helps other >>>>>> readers form an opinion as well. >>>>> >>>>> It was just another one of your endless dishonest dodges as can be >>>>> seen above This quote proves you are clueless: "H rejects (H^, H^)" >>>> You don't want to answer the question it seems. OK. >>>> >>>>> Ĥ( ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) only stops because its simulating halt decider stops it at >>>>> some point. >>>> But you will answer part of it. You are saying that case (1) does not >>>> apply. >>> >>> None of the cases apply because you are not following the last step of >>> the proof where no H is involved. >> H either does or does not accept the string in question. > > I don't know and I don't care it is a side issue not related to the > actual proof. Can we change the subject to the actual proof please? I can help you to see why my question is central to the actual proof, but only if read what I write, and ask questions about those parts you don't understand. The fact that, despite explicitly claiming that you have "an H that decides (Ĥ, Ĥ)", you have steadfastly avoided saying what that decision is for more than two and half years, strongly suggests that you don't like the answer you might have to give. But even if you mistakenly think it's a side issue, someone engaging in honest debate and searching for mutual understanding would answer it anyway. It's one word. One word that you claimed to have known for years. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 09:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <gOSdncpR3vd0k5n8nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37332 |
On 7/30/2021 6:39 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 7/29/2021 8:52 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 7/29/2021 7:30 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 7/28/2021 7:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7/28/2021 6:22 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 7/26/2021 6:48 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >>>>>>>>>>>> that this input never halts. >>>>>>>>>>> Who cares? H(P,P) == 0 and P(P) halts so H is not a halt decider. You >>>>>>>>>>> once claimed something "interesting" i.e. that you had >>>>>>>>>>> "encoded all of the ... Linz Turing machine H that correctly decides >>>>>>>>>>> halting for its fully encoded input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" >>>>>>>>>>> and you insisted that >>>>>>>>>>> "Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz >>>>>>>>>>> specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing >>>>>>>>>>> Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong." >>>>>>>>>>> Does that "Linz Turing machine H" accept or reject the "fully encoded >>>>>>>>>>> input pair (H^, H^)", and what is the halting status if H^ when given H^ >>>>>>>>>>> (encoded)? If, as now, H rejects (H^, H^) but H^ halts when given H^ >>>>>>>>>>> then there was never anything interesting about what you were claiming, >>>>>>>>>>> but it was at least about Turing machines and the proof you have fixated >>>>>>>>>>> on. >>>>>>>>>>> But you also said your TMs H and H^ are "exactly and precisely as in >>>>>>>>>>> Linz", so really either >>>>>>>>>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt on input H^, or >>>>>>>>>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^ >>>>>>>>>>> should be the case. So, come clean. Which was the case back then: >>>>>>>>>>> (1) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ does not halt in input H^, or >>>>>>>>>>> (2) H accepts (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^, or >>>>>>>>>>> (3) H rejects (H^, H^) and H^ halts on input H^. >>>>>>>>>>> Without the comfort blanket of your huge pile of junk x86 code, I >>>>>>>>>>> suspect you won't dare say. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>>>>>>>>> if M applied to wM halts, and >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When we apply Ĥ to its own TM description ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>> If you didn't understand the question, I might be able to explain it >>>>>>>>> some other way. If you are just avoiding answering it, then just say so >>>>>>>>> and I'll stop asking. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I totally ignored the convoluted mess of your question... >>>>>>> Would you like to know what I was asking, or do you just want to keep >>>>>>> posting stuff for your entertainment? It's simpler for me if you are >>>>>>> not interested in knowing what I was asking, and I think it helps other >>>>>>> readers form an opinion as well. >>>>>> >>>>>> It was just another one of your endless dishonest dodges as can be >>>>>> seen above This quote proves you are clueless: "H rejects (H^, H^)" >>>>> You don't want to answer the question it seems. OK. >>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ( ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) only stops because its simulating halt decider stops it at >>>>>> some point. >>>>> But you will answer part of it. You are saying that case (1) does not >>>>> apply. >>>> >>>> None of the cases apply because you are not following the last step of >>>> the proof where no H is involved. >>> H either does or does not accept the string in question. >> >> I don't know and I don't care it is a side issue not related to the >> actual proof. Can we change the subject to the actual proof please? > > I can help you to see why my question is central to the actual proof, > but only if read what I write, and ask questions about those parts you > don't understand. > > The fact that, despite explicitly claiming that you have "an H that > decides (Ĥ, Ĥ)", you have steadfastly avoided saying what that decision > is for more than two and half years, strongly suggests that you don't > like the answer you might have to give. > > But even if you mistakenly think it's a side issue, someone engaging in > honest debate and searching for mutual understanding would answer it > anyway. It's one word. One word that you claimed to have known for > years. > There are too many rat holes of miscommunication that are bound up in the case where one halt decider examines what another different halts decider does. I want to reach complete closure before my cancer kills me so I don't have time to waste on dead-ends. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web