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 13 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 27 Next page →
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 20:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <87zgu3lhv0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37347 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 7/30/2021 6:39 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> 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 > > 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. You've answered it in another sub-thread. Up-thread I asked || 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^. and it turns out that it's (3). Of course, you did not have a TM back then, so for your C code H(H^, H^) == 0 has to stand in for "H rejects (H^, H^)". -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-29 21:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <j66dnbdHrpV8_p78nZ2dnUU7-aXNnZ2d@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. >> 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? > Ĥ( ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) specifies an infinite cycle from Ĥ.qx to Ĥ.q0 all the time that Ĥ.qx remains a pure simulator of its input. This is the same criteria that both you and André agreed to: 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. This is very difficult and totally counter-intuitive yet: This is very difficult and totally counter-intuitive yet: This is very difficult and totally counter-intuitive yet: This is very difficult and totally counter-intuitive yet: The above really seems to prove that the halt decider at Ĥ.qx does correctly decide that its input never halts even when its input contradicts this by transitioning to Ĥ.qn and halting. It really really seems to be a contradiction and wrong, yet when we really really carefully study it, it really really seems to not be wrong. When the halt decider correctly decides that its input never halts and then this input halts we have a paradox and not an actual contradiction. -- 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 | 2021-07-29 19:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <eCJMI.48017$qk6.22284@fx36.iad> |
| In reply to | #37320 |
On 7/29/21 7:28 PM, olcott wrote: > 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. > >>> 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? >> > > Ĥ( ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) specifies an infinite cycle from Ĥ.qx to Ĥ.q0 all the time that > Ĥ.qx remains a pure simulator of its input. Right, is if H IS a pure simulator, H^(H^) is non-Halting, but H(H^,H^) doesn't give an answer, thus it doesn't matter. > > This is the same criteria that both you and André agreed to: > 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⟩) No, it only applies if H IS a pure simulatior, not a pure simulator until, which isn't a pure simulator. > > Ĥ( ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) only stops because its simulating halt decider stops it at some > point. > So? > This is very difficult and totally counter-intuitive yet: > This is very difficult and totally counter-intuitive yet: > This is very difficult and totally counter-intuitive yet: > This is very difficult and totally counter-intuitive yet: > > The above really seems to prove that the halt decider at Ĥ.qx does > correctly decide that its input never halts even when its input > contradicts this by transitioning to Ĥ.qn and halting. > UNSOUND. See Message-ID: <sdvjei$24o$1@dont-email.me> Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2021 01:08:34 GMT > It really really seems to be a contradiction and wrong, yet when we > really really carefully study it, it really really seems to not be wrong. > > When the halt decider correctly decides that its input never halts and > then this input halts we have a paradox and not an actual contradiction. > No, it is only contradictory when you use the FALSE logic of calling your H a PURE SIMULATOR when it isn't Please give us your review of the crap soup I asked you about, That is how good your logic is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 13:39 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <87im0s0ydp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37320 |
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. > >>> 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? > > Ĥ( ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) specifies an infinite cycle from Ĥ.qx to Ĥ.q0 all the time > that Ĥ.qx remains a pure simulator of its input. Again, you state something trivial and avoid the question. As far as I know, H is not a pure simulator (in your confusing wording it's a simulator for a while and then it isn't). > This is the same criteria that both you and André agreed to: > Every simulation that would never stop unless its simulating halt > decider stops it at some point specifies infinite execution. I retract all agreements you may think I've made. That's simpler than trying to explain myself. If you claim, henceforth, that I agree with anything other than my own, or a published textbook definition of halting, you will be arguing in bad faith. Any chance you will now say if > Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) transitions to Ĥ.qn or Ĥ.qy? If you find this question difficult, please ask for some help in understanding it. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 09:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <Brqdnfehrf0Kj5n8nZ2dnUU7-X3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37334 |
On 7/30/2021 7:39 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. >> >>>> 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? >> >> Ĥ( ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) specifies an infinite cycle from Ĥ.qx to Ĥ.q0 all the time >> that Ĥ.qx remains a pure simulator of its input. > > Again, you state something trivial and avoid the question. As far as I > know, H is not a pure simulator (in your confusing wording it's a > simulator for a while and then it isn't). > When it is stipulated that all the sides of a triangle have the same length then it is logically entailed that this triangle is an equilateral triangle. There is no leeway allowed to disagree with the premise in stipulative definitions or geometric "givens". When it is stipulated that Ĥ.qx is a UTM then it is logically entailed that Ĥ( ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) never halts. This logical entailment derives another one Ĥ( ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) cannot possibly ever reach its final state unless Ĥ.qx( ⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) aborts at least one of its simulations of its input. As you (just retracted) and André has already agreed: Every input to a simulating halt decider that only stops running when its simulation is aborted unequivocally specifies a computation that never halts. Therefore when Ĥ.qx( ⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) aborts the simulation of its input it is necessarily correct. >> This is the same criteria that both you and André agreed to: >> Every simulation that would never stop unless its simulating halt >> decider stops it at some point specifies infinite execution. > > I retract all agreements you may think I've made. That's simpler than > trying to explain myself. If you claim, henceforth, that I agree with > anything other than my own, or a published textbook definition of > halting, you will be arguing in bad faith. > Then try and explain how the input to H(P,P) or Ĥ.qx( ⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩ ) can possibly reach its final state. > Any chance you will now say if > >> Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) > > transitions to Ĥ.qn or Ĥ.qy? If you find this question difficult, > please ask for some help in understanding it. > Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) transitions to Ĥ.qn on the basis that its input cannot possibly ever reach its final state, and indeed its input never does reach its final state. -- 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 20:58 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] |
| Message-ID | <87tukblgjy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37348 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 7/30/2021 7:39 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Any chance you will now say if >> >>> Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) >> >> transitions to Ĥ.qn or Ĥ.qy? If you find this question difficult, >> please ask for some help in understanding it. > > Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) transitions to Ĥ.qn An answer. Thank you. Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn For Ĥ to be "exactly and precisely as in Linz" this, then, is the clause that applies to your H and Ĥ: >>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt so Ĥ (M) applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (wM) does not halt, but you have just told me that it does. That is what this full (but abbreviated) state transition sequence means: Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn Which is it? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-30 20:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <qtGdnfuXs4nFOZn8nZ2dnUU7-cnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37360 |
On 7/30/2021 2:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 7/30/2021 7:39 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > >>> Any chance you will now say if >>> >>>> Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) >>> >>> transitions to Ĥ.qn or Ĥ.qy? If you find this question difficult, >>> please ask for some help in understanding it. >> >> Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) transitions to Ĥ.qn > > An answer. Thank you. > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > > For Ĥ to be "exactly and precisely as in Linz" this, then, is the clause > that applies to your H and Ĥ: > There is no H in the relevant last paragraph of the Linz proof that forms the basis for the Linz conclusion. >>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt > > so Ĥ (M) applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (wM) does not halt, but you have just told me > that it does. That is what this full (but abbreviated) state transition > sequence means: > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > > Which is it? > Ĥ0.q0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then Ĥ0.qx simulates Ĥ1 with the ⟨Ĥ2⟩ copy then Ĥ1.q0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then Ĥ1.qx simulates Ĥ2 with the ⟨Ĥ3⟩ copy then Ĥ2.q0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then Ĥ2.qx simulates Ĥ3 with the ⟨Ĥ4⟩ copy then ... The outermost Ĥ0.qx correctly decides that its input: (⟨Ĥ1⟩, ⟨Ĥ2⟩) can't possibly ever reach its final state. Then it transitions to Ĥ0.qn causing the outermost Ĥ0 to halt. Because the outermost Ĥ0.qx did not decide that Ĥ0 would never halt and it is self evident that its input: (⟨Ĥ1⟩, ⟨Ĥ2⟩) can't possibly ever reach its final state there is no contradiction or paradox and it decided correctly. -- 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 | 2021-07-31 23:08 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <871r7ekugt.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37387 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 7/30/2021 2:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 7/30/2021 7:39 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >>>> Any chance you will now say if >>>> >>>>> Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) >>>> >>>> transitions to Ĥ.qn or Ĥ.qy? If you find this question difficult, >>>> please ask for some help in understanding it. >>> >>> Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) transitions to Ĥ.qn >> >> An answer. Thank you. >> >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> >> For Ĥ to be "exactly and precisely as in Linz" this, then, is the clause >> that applies to your H and Ĥ: > > There is no H in the relevant last paragraph of the Linz proof that > forms the basis for the Linz conclusion. Distraction. Everything you ignore below is about the proof and refers only to Ĥ. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >> >> so Ĥ (M) applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (wM) does not halt, but you have just told me >> that it does. That is what this full (but abbreviated) state transition >> sequence means: >> >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> >> Which is it? > > Ĥ0.q0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then Ĥ0.qx simulates Ĥ1 with the > ⟨Ĥ2⟩ copy then > Ĥ1.q0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then Ĥ1.qx simulates Ĥ2 with the > ⟨Ĥ3⟩ copy then > Ĥ2.q0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then Ĥ2.qx simulates Ĥ3 with the > ⟨Ĥ4⟩ copy then ... This is an abuse of the notation (but I know what you mean). There is no Ĥ1 or Ĥ2. If you think it helps to show which copy of ⟨Ĥ⟩ your simulating "decider" is either running and/or currently looking at, you need to come up with a notation that does that. At least I know what this "math poem" means, because you've been saying this "it's a simulator until" stuff for years. > The outermost Ĥ0.qx correctly decides that its input: (⟨Ĥ1⟩, ⟨Ĥ2⟩) > can't possibly ever reach its final state. Then it transitions to > Ĥ0.qn causing the outermost Ĥ0 to halt. Apart from the bad notation, yes. All those copies and tests and eventual deciding are neatly summed up in the last ⊢* Ĥ.qn of Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > Because the outermost Ĥ0.qx did not decide that Ĥ0 would never halt > and it is self evident that its input: (⟨Ĥ1⟩, ⟨Ĥ2⟩) can't possibly > ever reach its final state there is no contradiction or paradox and it > decided correctly. You are free to define "decide correctly" in any way you like provided you are honest about it. But you hooked people in by saying that your Ĥ is "exactly and precisely as in Linz", and you quoted, even now, what Linz has to say about such TMs: Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if M applied to wM does not halt This is your quote. You brought it up. You claimed your Ĥ was as Linz states -- that Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if and only if M applied to wM does not halt. Linz makes no exceptions based on why the transitions from Ĥ.q0 wM to Ĥ.qn occur. Linz does not say Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if M applied to wM does not halt or if M applied wM only halts because... Are you now saying that your TM was not "as in Linz"? (You should, because you've admitted that elsewhere.) -------- You have real trouble with this notation so I don't think you will know what I'm saying above, but for anyone else, here is a summary: If we have a TM "as in Linz" then this applies: Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if M applied to wM does not halt When asked what Ĥ does when given ⟨Ĥ⟩ PO says that it (eventually) transitions to Ĥ.qn, so the above clause applies with M = Ĥ and wM = ⟨Ĥ⟩: Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt The first line says that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts -- the final halting state is right there (Ĥ.qn) -- but the second line says that this should happen if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. This is why PO's Ĥ is not "as in Linz". -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-31 21:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <K5-dndGZo_-VmJv8nZ2dnUU78QvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37425 |
On 7/31/2021 5:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 7/30/2021 2:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 7/30/2021 7:39 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> >>>>> Any chance you will now say if >>>>> >>>>>> Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) >>>>> >>>>> transitions to Ĥ.qn or Ĥ.qy? If you find this question difficult, >>>>> please ask for some help in understanding it. >>>> >>>> Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) transitions to Ĥ.qn >>> >>> An answer. Thank you. >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> >>> For Ĥ to be "exactly and precisely as in Linz" this, then, is the clause >>> that applies to your H and Ĥ: >> >> There is no H in the relevant last paragraph of the Linz proof that >> forms the basis for the Linz conclusion. > > Distraction. Everything you ignore below is about the proof and refers > only to Ĥ. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>> >>> so Ĥ (M) applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (wM) does not halt, but you have just told me >>> that it does. That is what this full (but abbreviated) state transition >>> sequence means: >>> >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> >>> Which is it? >> >> Ĥ0.q0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then Ĥ0.qx simulates Ĥ1 with the >> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ copy then >> Ĥ1.q0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then Ĥ1.qx simulates Ĥ2 with the >> ⟨Ĥ3⟩ copy then >> Ĥ2.q0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then Ĥ2.qx simulates Ĥ3 with the >> ⟨Ĥ4⟩ copy then ... > > This is an abuse of the notation (but I know what you mean). There is > no Ĥ1 or Ĥ2. If you think it helps to show which copy of ⟨Ĥ⟩ your > simulating "decider" is either running and/or currently looking at, you > need to come up with a notation that does that. A better notation is what I have in my PDF actual subscripts but people here tel me that their newsreader makes sure to totally ignore posts with HTML so that do even see the post at all. > At least I know what > this "math poem" means, because you've been saying this "it's a > simulator until" stuff for years. > >> The outermost Ĥ0.qx correctly decides that its input: (⟨Ĥ1⟩, ⟨Ĥ2⟩) >> can't possibly ever reach its final state. Then it transitions to >> Ĥ0.qn causing the outermost Ĥ0 to halt. > > Apart from the bad notation, yes. All those copies and tests and > eventual deciding are neatly summed up in the last ⊢* Ĥ.qn of > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > >> Because the outermost Ĥ0.qx did not decide that Ĥ0 would never halt >> and it is self evident that its input: (⟨Ĥ1⟩, ⟨Ĥ2⟩) can't possibly >> ever reach its final state there is no contradiction or paradox and it >> decided correctly. > > You are free to define "decide correctly" in any way you like provided > you are honest about it. But you hooked people in by saying that your Ĥ > is "exactly and precisely as in Linz", and you quoted, even now, what > Linz has to say about such TMs: > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if M applied to wM does not halt > > This is your quote. You brought it up. You claimed your Ĥ was as Linz > states -- that Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if and only if M applied to wM does not > halt. Linz makes no exceptions based on why the transitions from Ĥ.q0 > wM to Ĥ.qn occur. Linz does not say > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if M applied to wM does not halt or if M applied wM only halts > because... > > Are you now saying that your TM was not "as in Linz"? (You should, > because you've admitted that elsewhere.) > Ĥ[0] is to be interpreted to mean Ĥ<sub>0</sub> [0] Means the actual Turing machine and not a TM description. [1] Means the first TM description parameter [2] Means a copy of the the first TM description parameter Now I am saying that when the actual unmodified Linz Ĥ is understood to have a UTM/Halt-Decider at Ĥ[0].qx that this Ĥ[0].qx does correctly decide that its input: (⟨Ĥ[1]⟩, ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩) can't possibly ever reach its final state of Ĥ[1].qn or Ĥ[2].qn, therefore we know that its input never halts therefore we know that a state transition from Ĥ[0].qx to Ĥ0.qn is necessarily correct. This is not a case of the halt decider deciding that Ĥ never halts and then Ĥ halts. There are three different instances of Ĥ involved. It is only their differing placement in the execution trace that makes the result vary. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation > -------- > You have real trouble with this notation so I don't think you will know > what I'm saying above, but for anyone else, here is a summary: > > If we have a TM "as in Linz" then this applies: > > Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if M applied to wM does not halt > > When asked what Ĥ does when given ⟨Ĥ⟩ PO says that it (eventually) > transitions to Ĥ.qn, so the above clause applies with M = Ĥ and wM = > ⟨Ĥ⟩: > > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > if Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt > > The first line says that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts -- the final halting > state is right there (Ĥ.qn) -- but the second line says that this should > happen if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. This is why > PO's Ĥ is not "as in Linz". > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-01 11:54 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <87czqxa0zk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37434 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 7/31/2021 5:08 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 7/30/2021 2:58 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 7/30/2021 7:39 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Any chance you will now say if >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) >>>>>> >>>>>> transitions to Ĥ.qn or Ĥ.qy? If you find this question difficult, >>>>>> please ask for some help in understanding it. >>>>> >>>>> Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩, ⟨Ĥ⟩) transitions to Ĥ.qn >>>> >>>> An answer. Thank you. >>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> >>>> For Ĥ to be "exactly and precisely as in Linz" this, then, is the clause >>>> that applies to your H and Ĥ: >>> >>> There is no H in the relevant last paragraph of the Linz proof that >>> forms the basis for the Linz conclusion. >> Distraction. Everything you ignore below is about the proof and refers >> only to Ĥ. >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if M applied to wM does not halt >>>> >>>> so Ĥ (M) applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ (wM) does not halt, but you have just told me >>>> that it does. That is what this full (but abbreviated) state transition >>>> sequence means: >>>> >>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> >>>> Which is it? >>> >>> Ĥ0.q0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ1⟩ to ⟨Ĥ2⟩ then Ĥ0.qx simulates Ĥ1 with the >>> ⟨Ĥ2⟩ copy then >>> Ĥ1.q0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ2⟩ to ⟨Ĥ3⟩ then Ĥ1.qx simulates Ĥ2 with the >>> ⟨Ĥ3⟩ copy then >>> Ĥ2.q0 copies its input ⟨Ĥ3⟩ to ⟨Ĥ4⟩ then Ĥ2.qx simulates Ĥ3 with the >>> ⟨Ĥ4⟩ copy then ... >> This is an abuse of the notation (but I know what you mean). There is >> no Ĥ1 or Ĥ2. If you think it helps to show which copy of ⟨Ĥ⟩ your >> simulating "decider" is either running and/or currently looking at, you >> need to come up with a notation that does that. > > A better notation is what I have in my PDF actual subscripts but > people here tel me that their newsreader makes sure to totally ignore > posts with HTML so that do even see the post at all. I am happy you have a notation you like. Are you prepared to address that fact that your H^ is not "as in Linz"? >> At least I know what >> this "math poem" means, because you've been saying this "it's a >> simulator until" stuff for years. >> >>> The outermost Ĥ0.qx correctly decides that its input: (⟨Ĥ1⟩, ⟨Ĥ2⟩) >>> can't possibly ever reach its final state. Then it transitions to >>> Ĥ0.qn causing the outermost Ĥ0 to halt. >> Apart from the bad notation, yes. All those copies and tests and >> eventual deciding are neatly summed up in the last ⊢* Ĥ.qn of >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> >>> Because the outermost Ĥ0.qx did not decide that Ĥ0 would never halt >>> and it is self evident that its input: (⟨Ĥ1⟩, ⟨Ĥ2⟩) can't possibly >>> ever reach its final state there is no contradiction or paradox and it >>> decided correctly. >> You are free to define "decide correctly" in any way you like provided >> you are honest about it. But you hooked people in by saying that your Ĥ >> is "exactly and precisely as in Linz", and you quoted, even now, what >> Linz has to say about such TMs: >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> if M applied to wM does not halt >> This is your quote. You brought it up. You claimed your Ĥ was as Linz >> states -- that Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if and only if M applied to wM does not >> halt. Linz makes no exceptions based on why the transitions from Ĥ.q0 >> wM to Ĥ.qn occur. Linz does not say >> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> if M applied to wM does not halt or if M applied wM only halts >> because... >> Are you now saying that your TM was not "as in Linz"? (You should, >> because you've admitted that elsewhere.) > > Ĥ[0] is to be interpreted to mean Ĥ<sub>0</sub> > [0] Means the actual Turing machine and not a TM description. > [1] Means the first TM description parameter > [2] Means a copy of the the first TM description parameter > > Now I am saying that when the actual unmodified Linz Ĥ is understood > to have a UTM/Halt-Decider at Ĥ[0].qx that this Ĥ[0].qx does correctly > decide that its input: (⟨Ĥ[1]⟩, ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩) can't possibly ever reach its > final state of Ĥ[1].qn or Ĥ[2].qn, therefore we know that its input > never halts therefore we know that a state transition from Ĥ[0].qx to > Ĥ0.qn is necessarily correct. We all know you are declaring that to be correct. Here's why your Ĥ is not "as in Linz". Linz requires that Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if M applied to wM does not halt Any Ĥ that eventually transitions to Ĥ.qn on input wM must do so if, and only if, the encoded M applied to wM does not halt. But you've given us a case where your Ĥ is not like this: Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn Here we can see that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can call your Ĥ's behaviour "correct". You can call it anything you like. But it's not "as in Linz". It does not say anything about Linz's proof. It does not do anything people would call impossible or even interesting. Presumably, you will simply explain, yet again, why you choose to call it correct. You might even, yet again, quote the symbols from Linz that don't apply to your Ĥ in order to make you posts seem relevant. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-01 05:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <53d47ab9-818c-4f40-8e72-bdb76fa416een@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37443 |
On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:54:57 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > Here we can see that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can call your Ĥ's > behaviour "correct". You can call it anything you like. But it's not > "as in Linz". It does not say anything about Linz's proof. It does not > do anything people would call impossible or even interesting. > It seems to be established that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returns "non-halting" whilst H_Hat(H_Hat) halts. So all is as Linz says it must be and no theorems are refuted. Which you would expect. If results were consistent it would have to be some cheap trick. However the reasons PO's halt decider fails on H_Hat(H_Hat) have got nothing to do with the invert step of Linz' proof. This is maybe interesting, but in a small way, it's not a revolutionary result which will turn computer science upside down. But it's maybe worth mentioning.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-01 13:41 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <87y29l8hhp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37446 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:54:57 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >> Here we can see that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can call your Ĥ's >> behaviour "correct". You can call it anything you like. But it's not >> "as in Linz". It does not say anything about Linz's proof. It does not >> do anything people would call impossible or even interesting. >> > It seems to be established that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returns "non-halting" > whilst H_Hat(H_Hat) halts. So all is as Linz says it must be and no > theorems are refuted. Which you would expect. If results were consistent > it would have to be some cheap trick. I case there is some confusion, I mean that PO's Ĥ is not an Ĥ as specified in Linz. Yes, everything is in accordance with the truth as laid out in Linz and, indeed, in any textbook. I point this out to PO because he brings it up. He keeps posting the specification of what an Ĥ, as Linz specifies it, would do: Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn if (and only if) M applied to wM does not halt. He claims (or used to claim) that his Ĥ meets this specification for at least the one case where wM == ⟨Ĥ⟩: Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt. To remain relevant, he /must/ keep insisting that his Ĥ meets the requirements laid out in Linz, if only for this one key input. > However the reasons PO's halt decider fails on H_Hat(H_Hat) have got > nothing to do with the invert step of Linz' proof. This is maybe interesting, > but in a small way, it's not a revolutionary result which will turn computer > science upside down. But it's maybe worth mentioning. I don't follow. H_Hat(H_Hat) halts because H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 making that result the wrong one. If H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returned non-zero, H_Hat(H_Hat) would not halt, making that the wrong result. Whilst I don't like this sort of language, H fails on H_Hat(H_Hat) precisely because of how H_Hat is constructed from H. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-01 07:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <99b46f6e-6017-48ec-bbd6-04dbcbd60e1an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37447 |
On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 13:41:25 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > However the reasons PO's halt decider fails on H_Hat(H_Hat) have got
> > nothing to do with the invert step of Linz' proof. This is maybe interesting,
> > but in a small way, it's not a revolutionary result which will turn computer
> > science upside down. But it's maybe worth mentioning.
> I don't follow. H_Hat(H_Hat) halts because H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 making
> that result the wrong one. If H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returned non-zero,
> H_Hat(H_Hat) would not halt, making that the wrong result. Whilst I
> don't like this sort of language, H fails on H_Hat(H_Hat) precisely
> because of how H_Hat is constructed from H.
>
Consider this. H_Cap (similar to H_Hat but missing the invert step);
H_Cap(I)
{
return H(I, I):
}
Now if H is a "simulating halt decider" it must get this wrong. H is (skeleton
code)
H(I, I)
{
while(true)
{
Step(I, I);
if (tightloopdetected())
return Non_Halting;
else if (haltsofitsownaccord)
return Halting;
}
}
The question is how we write the function tightloopdetected(). If it returns
true then H(H_Cap, H_Cap) the H(H_Cap, H_Cap) will terminate. If
it returns false, it wlll not. So H can never make the right decision for H_Cap(H_Cap).
We've elimiated the "invert the result" step from Linz's proof. We have to
insist that H is a "simulating halt decider" to achieve this. But that seems
to be a reasonable condition. We know there are many properties of Turing
machines that cannot be determined other than by stepping them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-01 16:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <87mtq189ng.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37449 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
> On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 13:41:25 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>> > However the reasons PO's halt decider fails on H_Hat(H_Hat) have
>> > got nothing to do with the invert step of Linz' proof. This is
>> > maybe interesting, but in a small way, it's not a revolutionary
>> > result which will turn computer science upside down. But it's maybe
>> > worth mentioning.
>>
>> I don't follow. H_Hat(H_Hat) halts because H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 making
>> that result the wrong one. If H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returned non-zero,
>> H_Hat(H_Hat) would not halt, making that the wrong result. Whilst I
>> don't like this sort of language, H fails on H_Hat(H_Hat) precisely
>> because of how H_Hat is constructed from H.
>>
> Consider this. H_Cap (similar to H_Hat but missing the invert step);
>
> H_Cap(I)
> {
> return H(I, I):
> }
>
> Now if H is a "simulating halt decider" it must get this wrong.
I see what you mean now, though H /must/ get this wrong only if it's a
particular kind of "simulating halt decider". Some will be able to get
this case right, which is not true of the "hat" construction.
> H(I, I)
> {
> while(true)
> {
> Step(I, I);
> if (tightloopdetected())
> return Non_Halting;
> else if (haltsofitsownaccord)
> return Halting;
> }
> }
>
> The question is how we write the function tightloopdetected(). If it
> returns true then H(H_Cap, H_Cap) the H(H_Cap, H_Cap) will
> terminate. If it returns false, it wlll not.
There's a typo there but I think I get what you mean. But I don't
agree. tightloopdetected can return false (endlessly) because it's
logic is clever enough to see that haltsofitsownaccord might become
true. Of course, this all depends on the details of the logic.
You are probably right that PO's H won't have any cleverness.
> We've elimiated the "invert the result" step from Linz's proof. We
> have to insist that H is a "simulating halt decider" to achieve this.
The proof is still there, with all the same steps in it. I think you
mean there is a /different/ proof, without that step, that shows that
some naive "deciders" gets other cases wrong. I don't see why you find
that interesting, but I think that's the bottom line: you find some
things interesting that I don't.
> But that seems to be a reasonable condition. We know there are
> many properties of Turing machines that cannot be determined other
> than by stepping them.
And again I'm lost. Can you name an "interesting" property of a TM
computation that /can/ be determined by stepping it?
My guess (you'll have to confirm) is that you mean there are many
properties that we can't always determine by stepping, but stepping the
computation is the "best we can do". If so, we've had this discussion
before, and I still disagree.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-01 11:41 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <50dfd889-9418-48d0-a20d-1d1f2c029c42n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37454 |
On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 16:30:46 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes: > > > We've elimiated the "invert the result" step from Linz's proof. We > > have to insist that H is a "simulating halt decider" to achieve this. > The proof is still there, with all the same steps in it. I think you > mean there is a /different/ proof, without that step, that shows that > some naive "deciders" gets other cases wrong. I don't see why you find > that interesting, but I think that's the bottom line: you find some > things interesting that I don't. > Sure, there's a different proof, inspired by Linz's, but with the "invert the result" step removed. It only applies to naive simulating deciders. So to make it into a proof of general interest, we've got to show that a naive simulating decider can't be bettered by any other type of decider. > > > But that seems to be a reasonable condition. We know there are > > many properties of Turing machines that cannot be determined other > > than by stepping them. > And again I'm lost. Can you name an "interesting" property of a TM > computation that /can/ be determined by stepping it? > Take its busy beaver score, for example. You might object that even a stepping scorer can't always detect when a machine won't halt. So just add a limit, which grows with then number of states to keep the set infinite. Busy beaver score before either a halt or m * N states steps. > > My guess (you'll have to confirm) is that you mean there are many > properties that we can't always determine by stepping, but stepping the > computation is the "best we can do". If so, we've had this discussion > before, and I still disagree. > Yes, that's a reasonable summary.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-01 20:26 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <87bl6h7yqy.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37457 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 16:30:46 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes: >> >> > We've elimiated the "invert the result" step from Linz's proof. We >> > have to insist that H is a "simulating halt decider" to achieve this. >> The proof is still there, with all the same steps in it. I think you >> mean there is a /different/ proof, without that step, that shows that >> some naive "deciders" gets other cases wrong. I don't see why you find >> that interesting, but I think that's the bottom line: you find some >> things interesting that I don't. >> > Sure, there's a different proof, inspired by Linz's, but with the "invert > the result" step removed. It only applies to naive simulating deciders. > So to make it into a proof of general interest, we've got to show that > a naive simulating decider can't be bettered by any other type of > decider. I don't see a way to get from "some very simple simulating TMs get even simple cases wrong" to anything of interest. I can't even see how to define a "simulating decider" without making it obvious how to construct a better one. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-01 14:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <cPadnTZbe-5oZJv8nZ2dnUU7-bednZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37457 |
On 8/1/2021 1:41 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 16:30:46 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> We've elimiated the "invert the result" step from Linz's proof. We
>>> have to insist that H is a "simulating halt decider" to achieve this.
>> The proof is still there, with all the same steps in it. I think you
>> mean there is a /different/ proof, without that step, that shows that
>> some naive "deciders" gets other cases wrong. I don't see why you find
>> that interesting, but I think that's the bottom line: you find some
>> things interesting that I don't.
>>
> Sure, there's a different proof, inspired by Linz's, but with the "invert
> the result" step removed. It only applies to naive simulating deciders.
> So to make it into a proof of general interest, we've got to show that
> a naive simulating decider can't be bettered by any other type of
> decider.
>>
>>> But that seems to be a reasonable condition. We know there are
>>> many properties of Turing machines that cannot be determined other
>>> than by stepping them.
>> And again I'm lost. Can you name an "interesting" property of a TM
>> computation that /can/ be determined by stepping it?
>>
> Take its busy beaver score, for example. You might object that even a
> stepping scorer can't always detect when a machine won't halt. So just
> add a limit, which grows with then number of states to keep the set
> infinite. Busy beaver score before either a halt or m * N states steps.
>>
>> My guess (you'll have to confirm) is that you mean there are many
>> properties that we can't always determine by stepping, but stepping the
>> computation is the "best we can do". If so, we've had this discussion
>> before, and I still disagree.
>>
> Yes, that's a reasonable summary.
>
>
Some errors were corrected and the rest was adapted to x86utm.
u32 HH(I, I)
{
HERE:
{
if (H(I, I) == 0)
return 0;
else
return 1;
}
goto HERE;
}
u32 H_Cap(I)
{
return HH(I, I);
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)H_Cap, (u32)H_Cap));
}
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:d02
...[00000d02][00211915][00211919] 55 push ebp
...[00000d03][00211915][00211919] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00000d05][00211915][00211919] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00000d08][00211911][00000d02] 50 push eax
...[00000d09][00211911][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[00000d0c][0021190d][00000d02] 51 push ecx
...[00000d0d][00211909][00000d12] e8c0ffffff call 00000cd2
...[00000cd2][00211905][00211915] 55 push ebp
...[00000cd3][00211905][00211915] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00000cd5][00211905][00211915] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00000cd8][00211901][00000d02] 50 push eax
...[00000cd9][00211901][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[00000cdc][002118fd][00000d02] 51 push ecx
...[00000cdd][002118f9][00000ce2] e8e0fdffff call 00000ac2
...[00000d02][0025c33d][0025c341] 55 push ebp
...[00000d03][0025c33d][0025c341] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00000d05][0025c33d][0025c341] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00000d08][0025c339][00000d02] 50 push eax
...[00000d09][0025c339][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[00000d0c][0025c335][00000d02] 51 push ecx
...[00000d0d][0025c331][00000d12] e8c0ffffff call 00000cd2
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
Input_Halts = 0
Proving that the above code is decided correctly.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-01 13:28 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <HtDNI.133084$h8.109373@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #37459 |
On 8/1/21 12:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/1/2021 1:41 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 16:30:46 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> We've elimiated the "invert the result" step from Linz's proof. We
>>>> have to insist that H is a "simulating halt decider" to achieve this.
>>> The proof is still there, with all the same steps in it. I think you
>>> mean there is a /different/ proof, without that step, that shows that
>>> some naive "deciders" gets other cases wrong. I don't see why you find
>>> that interesting, but I think that's the bottom line: you find some
>>> things interesting that I don't.
>>>
>> Sure, there's a different proof, inspired by Linz's, but with the "invert
>> the result" step removed. It only applies to naive simulating deciders.
>> So to make it into a proof of general interest, we've got to show that
>> a naive simulating decider can't be bettered by any other type of
>> decider.
>>>
>>>> But that seems to be a reasonable condition. We know there are
>>>> many properties of Turing machines that cannot be determined other
>>>> than by stepping them.
>>> And again I'm lost. Can you name an "interesting" property of a TM
>>> computation that /can/ be determined by stepping it?
>>>
>> Take its busy beaver score, for example. You might object that even a
>> stepping scorer can't always detect when a machine won't halt. So just
>> add a limit, which grows with then number of states to keep the set
>> infinite. Busy beaver score before either a halt or m * N states steps.
>>>
>>> My guess (you'll have to confirm) is that you mean there are many
>>> properties that we can't always determine by stepping, but stepping the
>>> computation is the "best we can do". If so, we've had this discussion
>>> before, and I still disagree.
>>>
>> Yes, that's a reasonable summary.
>>
>
>>
>
> Some errors were corrected and the rest was adapted to x86utm.
>
> u32 HH(I, I)
> {
> HERE:
> {
> if (H(I, I) == 0)
> return 0;
> else
> return 1;
> }
> goto HERE;
> }
>
> u32 H_Cap(I)
> {
> return HH(I, I);
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)H_Cap, (u32)H_Cap));
> }
>
> Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:d02
> ...[00000d02][00211915][00211919] 55 push ebp
> ...[00000d03][00211915][00211919] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000d05][00211915][00211919] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000d08][00211911][00000d02] 50 push eax
> ...[00000d09][00211911][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000d0c][0021190d][00000d02] 51 push ecx
> ...[00000d0d][00211909][00000d12] e8c0ffffff call 00000cd2
> ...[00000cd2][00211905][00211915] 55 push ebp
> ...[00000cd3][00211905][00211915] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000cd5][00211905][00211915] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000cd8][00211901][00000d02] 50 push eax
> ...[00000cd9][00211901][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000cdc][002118fd][00000d02] 51 push ecx
> ...[00000cdd][002118f9][00000ce2] e8e0fdffff call 00000ac2
> ...[00000d02][0025c33d][0025c341] 55 push ebp
> ...[00000d03][0025c33d][0025c341] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> ...[00000d05][0025c33d][0025c341] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000d08][0025c339][00000d02] 50 push eax
> ...[00000d09][0025c339][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> ...[00000d0c][0025c335][00000d02] 51 push ecx
> ...[00000d0d][0025c331][00000d12] e8c0ffffff call 00000cd2
> Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
>
> Input_Halts = 0
>
> Proving that the above code is decided correctly.
>
So, the issue isn't that H^ is contrary to H, just that it uses H?
Or, is H just non-halting on any recursive use of it?
It is clear that running H_Cap(H_Cap) by itself will return as H will
abort its simulation, return 0, HH return 0, and H_Cap returns 0.
You have lost the argument that there is no right answer, as if H does
return a 1 saying that it halts, it will be right.
The only conclusion I can make out of this is that you are just trying
to define that any 'recursive' use of H is considered non-halting.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-01 11:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn [ succinct ] |
| Message-ID | <TsidnfC9_pIDWJv8nZ2dnUU7-anNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37449 |
On 8/1/2021 9:25 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 13:41:25 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> However the reasons PO's halt decider fails on H_Hat(H_Hat) have got
>>> nothing to do with the invert step of Linz' proof. This is maybe interesting,
>>> but in a small way, it's not a revolutionary result which will turn computer
>>> science upside down. But it's maybe worth mentioning.
>> I don't follow. H_Hat(H_Hat) halts because H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 making
>> that result the wrong one. If H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returned non-zero,
>> H_Hat(H_Hat) would not halt, making that the wrong result. Whilst I
>> don't like this sort of language, H fails on H_Hat(H_Hat) precisely
>> because of how H_Hat is constructed from H.
>>
> Consider this. H_Cap (similar to H_Hat but missing the invert step);
>
> H_Cap(I)
> {
> return H(I, I):
> }
>
> Now if H is a "simulating halt decider" it must get this wrong. H is (skeleton
> code)
>
> H(I, I)
> {
> while(true)
> {
> Step(I, I);
> if (tightloopdetected())
> return Non_Halting;
> else if (haltsofitsownaccord)
> return Halting;
> }
> }
>
> The question is how we write the function tightloopdetected(). If it returns
> true then H(H_Cap, H_Cap) the H(H_Cap, H_Cap) will terminate. If
> it returns false, it wlll not. So H can never make the right decision for H_Cap(H_Cap).
>
Some errors were corrected and the rest was adapted to x86utm.
u32 HH(I, I)
{
HERE:
{
if (H(I, I) == 0)
return 0;
else
return 1;
}
goto HERE;
}
u32 H_Cap(I)
{
return HH(I, I);
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H((u32)H_Cap, (u32)H_Cap));
}
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:d02
...[00000d02][00211915][00211919] 55 push ebp
...[00000d03][00211915][00211919] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00000d05][00211915][00211919] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00000d08][00211911][00000d02] 50 push eax
...[00000d09][00211911][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[00000d0c][0021190d][00000d02] 51 push ecx
...[00000d0d][00211909][00000d12] e8c0ffffff call 00000cd2
...[00000cd2][00211905][00211915] 55 push ebp
...[00000cd3][00211905][00211915] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00000cd5][00211905][00211915] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00000cd8][00211901][00000d02] 50 push eax
...[00000cd9][00211901][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[00000cdc][002118fd][00000d02] 51 push ecx
...[00000cdd][002118f9][00000ce2] e8e0fdffff call 00000ac2
...[00000d02][0025c33d][0025c341] 55 push ebp
...[00000d03][0025c33d][0025c341] 8bec mov ebp,esp
...[00000d05][0025c33d][0025c341] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
...[00000d08][0025c339][00000d02] 50 push eax
...[00000d09][0025c339][00000d02] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
...[00000d0c][0025c335][00000d02] 51 push ecx
...[00000d0d][0025c331][00000d12] e8c0ffffff call 00000cd2
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
Input_Halts = 0
Proving that the above code is decided correctly.
> We've elimiated the "invert the result" step from Linz's proof. We have to
> insist that H is a "simulating halt decider" to achieve this. But that seems
> to be a reasonable condition. We know there are many properties of Turing
> machines that cannot be determined other than by stepping them.
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-08-01 10:02 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] |
| Message-ID | <LZOdnR5aLooNKpv8nZ2dnUU7-SnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37447 |
On 8/1/2021 7:41 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On Sunday, 1 August 2021 at 11:54:57 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>
>>> Here we can see that Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ halts. You can call your Ĥ's
>>> behaviour "correct". You can call it anything you like. But it's not
>>> "as in Linz". It does not say anything about Linz's proof. It does not
>>> do anything people would call impossible or even interesting.
>>>
>> It seems to be established that H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returns "non-halting"
>> whilst H_Hat(H_Hat) halts. So all is as Linz says it must be and no
>> theorems are refuted. Which you would expect. If results were consistent
>> it would have to be some cheap trick.
>
> I case there is some confusion, I mean that PO's Ĥ is not an Ĥ as
> specified in Linz. Yes, everything is in accordance with the truth as
> laid out in Linz and, indeed, in any textbook.
>
> I point this out to PO because he brings it up. He keeps posting the
> specification of what an Ĥ, as Linz specifies it, would do:
>
> Ĥ.q0 wM ⊢* Ĥ.qx wM wM ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> if (and only if) M applied to wM does not halt.
>
> He claims (or used to claim) that his Ĥ meets this specification for at
> least the one case where wM == ⟨Ĥ⟩:
>
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
> if (and only if) Ĥ applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ does not halt.
>
> To remain relevant, he /must/ keep insisting that his Ĥ meets the
> requirements laid out in Linz, if only for this one key input.
>
Ĥ[0].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>0</sub>.q0 which is the Turing machine.
Ĥ[1].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>1</sub>.q0 which is the Turing machine
description input to Ĥ[0].q0
Ĥ[2].q0 is taken to mean Ĥ<sub>2</sub>.q0 which is first copy of the
Turing machine description input to Ĥ[0].q0
Ĥ[0].q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qx ⟨Ĥ[1]⟩ ⟨Ĥ[2]⟩ ⊢* Ĥ[0].qn
It is neither a contradiction nor a paradox because there are three
different instances of Ĥ.
Because the only reason that the first instance halts is that Ĥ[0].qx
correctly determines that its input cannot possibly ever reach its final
state of Ĥ[1].qn or Ĥ[1].qy whether or not the simulating halt decider
aborts its simulation of this input, we know with 100% perfectly
justified logical certainty that the input to Ĥ[0].qx never halts.
>> However the reasons PO's halt decider fails on H_Hat(H_Hat) have got
>> nothing to do with the invert step of Linz' proof. This is maybe interesting,
>> but in a small way, it's not a revolutionary result which will turn computer
>> science upside down. But it's maybe worth mentioning.
>
> I don't follow. H_Hat(H_Hat) halts because H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == 0 making
> that result the wrong one. If H(H_Hat, H_Hat) returned non-zero,
> H_Hat(H_Hat) would not halt, making that the wrong result. Whilst I
> don't like this sort of language, H fails on H_Hat(H_Hat) precisely
> because of how H_Hat is constructed from H.
>
Garbage in derives garbage out that this garbage collector** recognizes
and rejects:
** Pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) decider
// H and H2 are partial halt deciders
u32 PSR_Decider(u32 P, u32 I)
{
u32 Input_Halts1 = H((u32)P, (u32)I);
u32 Input_Halts2 = H2((u32)Simulate, (u32)P, (u32)I);
Output("Input_Halts1 = ", Input_Halts1);
Output("Input_Halts2 = ", Input_Halts2);
if (Input_Halts1 != Input_Halts2)
return 1;
return 0;
}
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web