Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #124444 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2025-08-10 01:06 -0500 |
| Last post | 2025-08-10 22:50 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 254 — 12 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 01:06 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-10 08:37 +0200
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 09:08 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-11 10:20 +0200
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 09:54 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-12 12:19 +0200
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 07:58 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 09:11 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 22:54 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 10:19 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 00:21 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:29 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 14:35 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 00:25 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 22:07 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 09:20 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 22:49 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 10:02 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 23:08 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 10:29 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 23:40 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 10:43 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 23:57 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 11:09 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 00:22 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 11:24 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 00:51 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 12:07 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 01:29 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 12:44 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 01:55 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 13:02 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 14:04 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- Halting problem definition is corrected olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 13:28 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- Halting problem definition is corrected dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 14:31 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- Halting problem definition is corrected olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 13:46 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- Halting problem definition is corrected dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 14:50 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 02:18 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 13:36 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 19:57 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 14:05 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 20:23 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 03:02 +0800
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- True(L,x) predicate olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 14:11 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-11 16:51 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 12:11 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-12 12:24 +0200
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-12 07:37 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-11 15:47 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 10:58 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-08-11 16:37 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 12:27 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 17:08 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 07:21 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 12:24 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 09:06 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 17:06 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 13:34 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 14:02 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 12:30 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-10 17:00 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 17:22 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-10 17:31 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 17:52 +0100
Christmas cards [was: Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page] Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-10 20:32 +0100
Re: Christmas cards [was: Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page] Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 22:26 +0100
Re: Christmas cards Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-11 00:24 +0100
Re: Christmas cards Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 02:50 +0100
Re: Christmas cards Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-12 00:45 +0100
Re: Christmas cards Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-12 04:48 +0100
Re: Christmas cards "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 01:17 -0700
Re: Christmas cards Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-12 14:42 +0100
Re: Christmas cards Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-12 18:57 +0100
Re: Christmas cards Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-13 00:42 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-08-10 18:23 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-10 20:04 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-08-10 21:36 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 15:46 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-08-10 23:07 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 11:26 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 16:32 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 11:43 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 16:51 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:26 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 19:34 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 14:36 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 17:55 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 16:59 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:21 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 19:24 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:30 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 14:37 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:44 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 19:51 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 14:09 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 19:17 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 15:24 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 22:00 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 16:04 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 22:32 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 16:35 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 22:40 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 16:42 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:50 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 16:53 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:56 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:07 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:10 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:17 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 22:24 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:34 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 22:50 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:53 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 22:54 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:59 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 20:54 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:58 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 23:03 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:05 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 23:08 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:16 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 23:21 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 21:01 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 21:00 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 20:49 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:28 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:37 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:41 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:44 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:47 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 21:04 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 21:03 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 00:24 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 20:51 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 03:27 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 21:35 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 04:00 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 22:06 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 04:22 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 22:34 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 22:49 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 20:46 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 20:43 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 17:59 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 22:53 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 16:54 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 23:12 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:24 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:30 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:38 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:44 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:48 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:50 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 17:51 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:56 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:01 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 19:04 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 18:10 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 19:12 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 23:14 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page -- Halting Problem False Assumption olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 19:14 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page -- Halting Problem False Assumption Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 21:24 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 00:55 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 00:35 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-10 23:37 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 19:24 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 02:59 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 21:13 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 03:48 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 21:59 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 04:09 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 22:16 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-11 04:25 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- Fatal Mistake of all the HP proofs. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 22:41 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 12:52 -0700
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 17:28 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 18:32 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 17:37 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 18:45 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 17:52 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 18:55 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 18:43 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 19:45 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-11 23:47 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 19:03 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-08-12 00:23 +0000
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 19:30 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 20:54 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-11 21:31 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 01:20 -0700
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-11 21:29 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 01:26 -0700
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 21:12 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 17:58 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 17:57 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 14:52 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:58 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 15:01 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 15:04 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-11 10:25 +0200
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-11 09:58 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-12 12:54 +0200
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 12:01 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 13:01 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 12:08 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 13:14 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 12:18 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 13:31 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 12:36 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 13:37 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 18:59 -0700
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 21:16 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 22:19 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 21:28 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 22:34 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 21:39 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-12 22:48 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 22:57 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-12 23:16 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 22:52 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-12 22:03 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-12 23:25 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-12 18:50 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-12 18:48 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-12 18:45 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-12 21:51 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-13 10:40 +0200
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-13 10:46 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-13 22:10 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-08-14 10:42 +0200
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 15:22 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 14:38 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 19:47 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 19:44 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:55 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 20:14 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 14:23 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 15:16 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 14:26 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:24 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 14:27 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 12:46 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:23 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 14:29 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 14:34 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 13:46 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 14:57 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 14:02 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 15:06 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 15:17 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-08-10 17:47 +0100
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 13:39 -0400
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-08-10 21:01 -0500
Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-08-10 22:50 -0400
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 19:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page -- Halting Problem False Assumption |
| Message-ID | <107bcks$27qfh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124620 |
On 8/10/2025 6:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: > On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 18:10:30 -0500, olcott wrote: > >> On 8/10/2025 6:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>> On 8/10/2025 7:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/10/2025 5:56 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>> *Trollish replies will be henceforth ignored* >>>> >>>> >>> Translation: >>> >>> "I will ignore things that prove me wrong" >> >> I will pay very close attention to any actual attempts to prove me >> wrong. The closest attempt to prove me wrong is the fact that HHH(DD)==0 >> and the directly executed DD() disagree. > > It isn't an attempt, it is a fact: you have been proven wrong. > > /Flibble The halting problem itself has always been wrong when it requires a Turing machine to directly report on the behavior of another directly executed Turing machine because no Turing machine can take another directly executed Turing machine as an input. The conventional proofs talk about a halt decider H reporting on the behavior of machine M on input P yet H is not given machine M it is only given machine description ⟨M⟩. This assumes that the behavior of machine M on input P will be identical to the correct simulation of ⟨M⟩ on P. This is axiomatically true except in one specific case: When machine M contains simulating halt decider H and M is applied to ⟨M⟩ M.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* M.H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* M.qy M.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* M.H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* M.qn *Repeats until aborted proving non-halting* (a) M copies its input ⟨M⟩ (b) M invokes M.H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ (c) M.H simulates ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ then M applied to ⟨M⟩ halts -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 21:24 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page -- Halting Problem False Assumption |
| Message-ID | <iDbmQ.82743$mZJ3.65633@fx35.iad> |
| In reply to | #124630 |
On 8/10/25 8:14 PM, olcott wrote: > On 8/10/2025 6:14 PM, Mr Flibble wrote: >> On Sun, 10 Aug 2025 18:10:30 -0500, olcott wrote: >> >>> On 8/10/2025 6:04 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> On 8/10/2025 7:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 8/10/2025 5:56 PM, dbush wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> *Trollish replies will be henceforth ignored* >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Translation: >>>> >>>> "I will ignore things that prove me wrong" >>> >>> I will pay very close attention to any actual attempts to prove me >>> wrong. The closest attempt to prove me wrong is the fact that HHH(DD)==0 >>> and the directly executed DD() disagree. >> >> It isn't an attempt, it is a fact: you have been proven wrong. >> >> /Flibble > > The halting problem itself has always been wrong > when it requires a Turing machine to directly > report on the behavior of another directly executed > Turing machine because no Turing machine can take > another directly executed Turing machine as an input. Nope, just shows you don't even understand the concept of a probem. It also says your thinking ability can't handle even simple concepts like representations, at least for things that you need to think of as representation. You probably don't understand that writing numbers like ten as 10 is just a form of representation, and the encoding of Turing Machine is done be essentially the same sort of thing as the encoding of numbers. > > The conventional proofs talk about a halt decider H > reporting on the behavior of machine M on input P yet > H is not given machine M it is only given machine > description ⟨M⟩. Right, because that *IS* the problem. Maybe you don't understand that Turing Machines are designed to compute mappings of all kinds via the means of representation, and the "Halting Funciton" *IS* a function that takes as its input a Turing machine and its input and maps it to Halting or Not-Halting. > > This assumes that the behavior of machine M on input P > will be identical to the correct simulation of ⟨M⟩ on P. > This is axiomatically true except in one specific case: Which it does, as that IS the semantic meaning of the input. If it isn't, then you just lied to the decider. > > When machine M contains simulating halt decider H > and M is applied to ⟨M⟩ > M.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* M.H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* M.qy > M.q0 ⟨M⟩ ⊢* M.H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ ⊢* M.qn > > *Repeats until aborted proving non-halting* > (a) M copies its input ⟨M⟩ > (b) M invokes M.H ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ > (c) M.H simulates ⟨M⟩ ⟨M⟩ > then M applied to ⟨M⟩ halts > But since it *DOES* abort, that isn't a proof, but is based on a false premise. The behavior of the input will have its simulation started in the first (c) will also abort itself (but after the decider stopped looking at the behavior by stopping its simulation of it) and return to H^ which will halt. Thus, you are just showing that you ar just a stupid liar that refuses to learn the meaning of the words. Since you haven't specifically tried to redefine them, Halting and Non-Halting are terms that appply to the direct execution of a Turing Machine, or to a COMPLETE simulaiton of that machine, If you can't show that the simulation of that exact input (and H^ includes the algorith of the H it is built on, so changing H the H you want to talk about doig the simulation can't change the alrogithm of the H that THIS H^ was built on) will continue for an UNBOUNDED nubmer of steps, it doesn't show non-halting. Also H and H^ are PROGRAMS, which means they include ALL the algorithm they use, and thus H^ includes the full detailed algorithm of H as part of it, which needs to be in its representation. Programs are deterministic, and depend ONLY on their input, so H can't look somewhere else ot see the code of H in H^, that code has to be part of the input. Until you can argue that your definitions are equivalent of these, you are just admitting you aren't working in computation theory, and jut makeing a big category error to say you are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 00:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <107bbi6$27305$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124617 |
On 11/08/2025 00:10, olcott wrote: > On 8/10/2025 6:04 PM, dbush wrote: >> On 8/10/2025 7:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/10/2025 5:56 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> >>> *Trollish replies will be henceforth ignored* >> >> Translation: >> >> "I will ignore things that prove me wrong" > > I will pay very close attention to any actual attempts > to prove me wrong. Change of heart? Okay, let's test your willingness to engage in good faith. > The closest attempt to prove me wrong > is the fact that HHH(DD)==0 and the directly executed > DD() disagree. Actually, I think not. It's inconvenient and embarrassing, undoubtedly, but that's all. If you care enough you can track down the cause and fix it up, and we can all forgive and forget. But that doesn't solve your basic problem, which is that DD is characterised by the twist in its tail, but HHH doesn't ever get that far. Clearly I'm no expert on HHH, but as I understand it it just single-steps through DD while keeping an eye out for loop-like behaviour. If that is all it does, then the first thing it encounters is the call to HHH, and in it recurses... and again... and again... and it never ever reaches the interesting code in DD. You continually claim that HHH is correctly simulating DD, but this is rather like claiming that you're correctly exploring Europe without ever getting south of Denmark. The heart of DD remains untouched by HHH, and what HHH decides by watching itself recurse really isn't terribly interesting. What matters, for DD, is what happens after HHH finally calls a halt, unwinds the stack, and send a result back to DD. This is the part of the story that, as far as I can tell, you have never even attempted to address, and it has absolutely nothing to do with emulation. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 00:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <107bab8$27305$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124610 |
On 11/08/2025 00:01, olcott wrote: > On 8/10/2025 5:56 PM, dbush wrote: > > *Trollish replies will be henceforth ignored* Since you never respond constructively to anyone, I fail to see what difference it makes. If it makes you feel any better, I have no objection to you killfiling me right now. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 23:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p3amQ.9538$PFsd.298@fx03.ams4> |
| In reply to | #124627 |
On Mon, 11 Aug 2025 00:35:04 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 11/08/2025 00:01, olcott wrote: >> On 8/10/2025 5:56 PM, dbush wrote: >> >> *Trollish replies will be henceforth ignored* > > > Since you never respond constructively to anyone, I fail to see what > difference it makes. > > If it makes you feel any better, I have no objection to you killfiling > me right now. I guess there is no point you killfiling Olcott as you will still see the threads. /Flibble
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 19:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <107bd7o$27qfh$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124627 |
On 8/10/2025 6:35 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 11/08/2025 00:01, olcott wrote: >> On 8/10/2025 5:56 PM, dbush wrote: >> >> *Trollish replies will be henceforth ignored* > > > Since you never respond constructively to anyone, I fail to see what > difference it makes. > > If it makes you feel any better, I have no objection to you killfiling > me right now. > When I make every attempt at rebuttal look ridiculously foolish that raises my credibility. I can't kill file anyone because that prevents me from calling out libelous statements. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 02:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <107bipp$28sg8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124633 |
On 11/08/2025 01:24, olcott wrote: > On 8/10/2025 6:35 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 11/08/2025 00:01, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/10/2025 5:56 PM, dbush wrote: >>> >>> *Trollish replies will be henceforth ignored* >> >> >> Since you never respond constructively to anyone, I fail to see >> what difference it makes. >> >> If it makes you feel any better, I have no objection to you >> killfiling me right now. >> > > When I make every attempt at rebuttal look > ridiculously foolish that raises my credibility. I think you really believe that, but you couldn't be more wrong. You could be taken much more seriously than you are, if only you cleaned up your act and made an effort to understand people's objections to your claims, objections that - even if you don't agree with them - have a pretty darn solid theoretical grounding. Until just a few months ago I had never heard of you. At the outset of my foray into comp.theory I was open minded, but you treated people so badly that it just destroyed any chance you had of my taking you seriously. Grown-ups don't play that game. As for credibility... heh. Whatever you say, dude. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 21:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <107bjk2$28fle$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124653 |
On 8/10/2025 8:59 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 11/08/2025 01:24, olcott wrote: >> On 8/10/2025 6:35 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 11/08/2025 00:01, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/10/2025 5:56 PM, dbush wrote: >>>> >>>> *Trollish replies will be henceforth ignored* >>> >>> >>> Since you never respond constructively to anyone, I fail to see what >>> difference it makes. >>> >>> If it makes you feel any better, I have no objection to you >>> killfiling me right now. >>> >> >> When I make every attempt at rebuttal look >> ridiculously foolish that raises my credibility. > > I think you really believe that, but you couldn't be more wrong. > > You could be taken much more seriously than you are, if only you cleaned > up your act and made an effort to understand people's objections to your > claims, objections that - even if you don't agree with them - have a > pretty darn solid theoretical grounding. > I understand that they are so sure that I must be wrong that they feel fully justified in not carefully examining anything that I say. > Until just a few months ago I had never heard of you. At the outset of > my foray into comp.theory I was open minded, but you treated people so > badly that it just destroyed any chance you had of my taking you > seriously. Grown-ups don't play that game. > > As for credibility... heh. Whatever you say, dude. > If you want to care to understand that HHH(DD)==0 is correct on the basis that DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement final halt state then we can achieve mutual agreement. When you insist that DD is not correctly emulated by HHH when I show you this proof that it is, then it would seem that you do not care about an honest dialogue. _DD() [00002183] 55 push ebp [00002184] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00002186] 51 push ecx [00002187] 6883210000 push 00002183 [0000218c] e832f4ffff call 000015c3 [00002191] 83c404 add esp,+04 [00002194] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax [00002197] 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 [0000219b] 7402 jz 0000219f [0000219d] ebfe jmp 0000219d [0000219f] 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04] [000021a2] 8be5 mov esp,ebp [000021a4] 5d pop ebp [000021a5] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0035) [000021a5] _main() [000021b3] 55 push ebp [000021b4] 8bec mov ebp,esp [000021b6] 6883210000 push 00002183 [000021bb] e803f4ffff call 000015c3 [000021c0] 83c404 add esp,+04 [000021c3] 33c0 xor eax,eax [000021c5] 5d pop ebp [000021c6] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0020) [000021c6] machine stack stack machine assembly address address data code language ======== ======== ======== ============== ============= [000021b3][00103864][00000000] 55 push ebp [000021b4][00103864][00000000] 8bec mov ebp,esp [000021b6][00103860][00002183] 6883210000 push 00002183 // push DD [000021bb][0010385c][000021c0] e803f4ffff call 000015c3 // call HHH New slave_stack at:103908 Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation Execution Trace Stored at:113910 [00002183][00113900][00113904] 55 push ebp [00002184][00113900][00113904] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00002186][001138fc][00103908] 51 push ecx [00002187][001138f8][00002183] 6883210000 push 00002183 // push DD [0000218c][001138f4][00002191] e832f4ffff call 000015c3 // call HHH This proves that the first five instruction of DD are correctly emulated by HHH. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 03:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <107blmd$29jsb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124656 |
On 11/08/2025 03:13, olcott wrote: > If you want to care to understand that HHH(DD)==0 > is correct on the basis that DD correctly emulated > by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement > final halt state then we can achieve mutual agreement. > > When you insist that DD is not correctly emulated by > HHH when I show you this proof that it is, then it > would seem that you do not care about an honest dialogue. Classic example of what I was talking about. This is why people won't be patient with you. Your price for talking civilly to people is that they must first agree with your risible claims. It's a price very few people are prepared to pay. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 21:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <107bmaq$28fle$13@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124666 |
On 8/10/2025 9:48 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 11/08/2025 03:13, olcott wrote: >> If you want to care to understand that HHH(DD)==0 >> is correct on the basis that DD correctly emulated >> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement >> final halt state then we can achieve mutual agreement. >> >> When you insist that DD is not correctly emulated by >> HHH when I show you this proof that it is, then it >> would seem that you do not care about an honest dialogue. > > Classic example of what I was talking about. > > This is why people won't be patient with you. Your price for talking > civilly to people is that they must first agree with your risible > claims. It's a price very few people are prepared to pay. > You don't have to agree with my claims. If you don't agree and cannot provide any sound basis for disagreement then I will write you off as a troll. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 04:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <107bmss$28sg8$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124675 |
On 11/08/2025 03:59, olcott wrote: > On 8/10/2025 9:48 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 11/08/2025 03:13, olcott wrote: >>> If you want to care to understand that HHH(DD)==0 >>> is correct on the basis that DD correctly emulated >>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement >>> final halt state then we can achieve mutual agreement. >>> >>> When you insist that DD is not correctly emulated by >>> HHH when I show you this proof that it is, then it >>> would seem that you do not care about an honest dialogue. >> >> Classic example of what I was talking about. >> >> This is why people won't be patient with you. Your price for >> talking civilly to people is that they must first agree with >> your risible claims. It's a price very few people are prepared >> to pay. >> > > You don't have to agree with my claims. And you don't have to act like a grown-up. > If you don't agree and cannot provide > any sound basis for disagreement then > I will write you off as a troll. You and I clearly disagree on what constitutes sound basis for disagreement. Feel free to write me off as whatever you think best, just as I (like most subscribers to this group) have written you off as a crank. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 22:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <107bn9r$28fle$16@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124680 |
On 8/10/2025 10:09 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 11/08/2025 03:59, olcott wrote: >> On 8/10/2025 9:48 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 11/08/2025 03:13, olcott wrote: >>>> If you want to care to understand that HHH(DD)==0 >>>> is correct on the basis that DD correctly emulated >>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement >>>> final halt state then we can achieve mutual agreement. >>>> >>>> When you insist that DD is not correctly emulated by >>>> HHH when I show you this proof that it is, then it >>>> would seem that you do not care about an honest dialogue. >>> >>> Classic example of what I was talking about. >>> >>> This is why people won't be patient with you. Your price for talking >>> civilly to people is that they must first agree with your risible >>> claims. It's a price very few people are prepared to pay. >>> >> >> You don't have to agree with my claims. > > And you don't have to act like a grown-up. > >> If you don't agree and cannot provide >> any sound basis for disagreement then >> I will write you off as a troll. > > You and I clearly disagree on what constitutes Saying the DD is not correctly emulated by HHH at minimum requires pointing to the line of DD that is emulated by HHH incorrectly and explaining what is wrong with the emulation of this line by HHH. _DD() [00002162] 55 push ebp [00002163] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00002165] 51 push ecx [00002166] 6862210000 push 00002162 // push DD [0000216b] e862f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH [00002170] 83c404 add esp,+04 [00002173] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax [00002176] 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 [0000217a] 7402 jz 0000217e [0000217c] ebfe jmp 0000217c [0000217e] 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04] [00002181] 8be5 mov esp,ebp [00002183] 5d pop ebp [00002184] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0035) [00002184] > sound basis for > disagreement. Feel free to write me off as whatever you think best, just > as I (like most subscribers to this group) have written you off as a crank. > -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 04:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <107bnr6$29jsb$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124681 |
On 11/08/2025 04:16, olcott wrote: > On 8/10/2025 10:09 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 11/08/2025 03:59, olcott wrote: >>> On 8/10/2025 9:48 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 11/08/2025 03:13, olcott wrote: >>>>> If you want to care to understand that HHH(DD)==0 >>>>> is correct on the basis that DD correctly emulated >>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement >>>>> final halt state then we can achieve mutual agreement. >>>>> >>>>> When you insist that DD is not correctly emulated by >>>>> HHH when I show you this proof that it is, then it >>>>> would seem that you do not care about an honest dialogue. >>>> >>>> Classic example of what I was talking about. >>>> >>>> This is why people won't be patient with you. Your price for >>>> talking civilly to people is that they must first agree with >>>> your risible claims. It's a price very few people are >>>> prepared to pay. >>>> >>> >>> You don't have to agree with my claims. >> >> And you don't have to act like a grown-up. >> >>> If you don't agree and cannot provide >>> any sound basis for disagreement then >>> I will write you off as a troll. >> >> You and I clearly disagree on what constitutes > > Saying the DD is not correctly emulated by HHH at > minimum requires pointing to the line of DD that > is emulated by HHH incorrectly and explaining what > is wrong with the emulation of this line by HHH. We've already been round this loop. Finding your bug is your job, not mine. That there /is/ a bug I deduce from your claim that the simulation fails to simulate the directly executed program. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-10 22:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Claude AI sums up my work in one page --- Fatal Mistake of all the HP proofs. |
| Message-ID | <107boos$28fle$20@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124684 |
On 8/10/2025 10:25 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 11/08/2025 04:16, olcott wrote: >> On 8/10/2025 10:09 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 11/08/2025 03:59, olcott wrote: >>>> On 8/10/2025 9:48 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>> On 11/08/2025 03:13, olcott wrote: >>>>>> If you want to care to understand that HHH(DD)==0 >>>>>> is correct on the basis that DD correctly emulated >>>>>> by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement >>>>>> final halt state then we can achieve mutual agreement. >>>>>> >>>>>> When you insist that DD is not correctly emulated by >>>>>> HHH when I show you this proof that it is, then it >>>>>> would seem that you do not care about an honest dialogue. >>>>> >>>>> Classic example of what I was talking about. >>>>> >>>>> This is why people won't be patient with you. Your price for >>>>> talking civilly to people is that they must first agree with your >>>>> risible claims. It's a price very few people are prepared to pay. >>>>> >>>> >>>> You don't have to agree with my claims. >>> >>> And you don't have to act like a grown-up. >>> >>>> If you don't agree and cannot provide >>>> any sound basis for disagreement then >>>> I will write you off as a troll. >>> >>> You and I clearly disagree on what constitutes >> >> Saying the DD is not correctly emulated by HHH at >> minimum requires pointing to the line of DD that >> is emulated by HHH incorrectly and explaining what >> is wrong with the emulation of this line by HHH. > > We've already been round this loop. > > Finding your bug is your job, not mine. > > That there /is/ a bug I deduce from your claim that the simulation fails > to simulate the directly executed program. > The single isolated case where a direct execution diverges from a correct simulation is when DD calls its own simulating termination analyzer. The fatal mistake of all of the proofs is the false assumption that no such case exists. Finding that your assumption is false requires you to look for the bug and find that none exists. _DD() [00002162] 55 push ebp [00002163] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00002165] 51 push ecx [00002166] 6862210000 push 00002162 // push DD [0000216b] e862f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH [00002170] 83c404 add esp,+04 [00002173] 8945fc mov [ebp-04],eax [00002176] 837dfc00 cmp dword [ebp-04],+00 [0000217a] 7402 jz 0000217e [0000217c] ebfe jmp 0000217c [0000217e] 8b45fc mov eax,[ebp-04] [00002181] 8be5 mov esp,ebp [00002183] 5d pop ebp [00002184] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0035) [00002184] You cannot show that DD emulated by HH according to the definition of the x86 language can possibly reach its own correctly emulated "ret" instruction because it cannot. -- Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 12:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87qzxh8wm7.fsf@example.invalid> |
| In reply to | #124684 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
[...]
> We've already been round this loop.
>
> Finding your bug is your job, not mine.
>
> That there /is/ a bug I deduce from your claim that the simulation
> fails to simulate the directly executed program.
Indeed. If someone shows me a 20,000-line program that reports that
2+2=5, I can report that the program is buggy on that basis alone.
I'm not obligated to track down the typo on line 14,235 and provide
a fix.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 17:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <107dqqv$2suao$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124822 |
On 8/11/2025 2:52 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> [...]
>> We've already been round this loop.
>>
>> Finding your bug is your job, not mine.
>>
>> That there /is/ a bug I deduce from your claim that the simulation
>> fails to simulate the directly executed program.
>
> Indeed. If someone shows me a 20,000-line program that reports that
> 2+2=5, I can report that the program is buggy on that basis alone.
> I'm not obligated to track down the typo on line 14,235 and provide
> a fix.
>
Yes. When someone believes that another different
result is incorrect on the basis of their own false
assumption, then this is a different case.
The only way for them to be convinced they their
assumption is false is to ask them to find an error
in an algorithm that can be completely understood
in less than a half page of text.
When they do this and find that no error exists
then they know that their assumption was wrong.
void DDD()
{
HHH(DDD);
return;
}
_DDD()
[00002192] 55 push ebp
[00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192 // push DDD
[0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH
[0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[000021a2] 5d pop ebp
[000021a3] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
DDD correctly simulated by simulating termination analyzer
HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement final
halt state and DDD() halts.
The x86 code proves beyond all doubt that DDD is emulated
by HHH according to the definition of the x86 language
and people still disagree, thus disagreeing with the
definition of the x86 language.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 18:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <107dr1n$2t0g0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124828 |
On 8/11/2025 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>
> void DDD()
> {
> HHH(DDD);
> return;
> }
>
> _DDD()
> [00002192] 55 push ebp
> [00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192 // push DDD
> [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH
> [0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04
> [000021a2] 5d pop ebp
> [000021a3] c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>
> DDD correctly simulated by simulating termination analyzer
> HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement final
> halt state and DDD() halts.
>
> The x86 code proves beyond all doubt that DDD is emulated
> by HHH according to the definition of the x86 language
False, because HHH aborts in violation of the x86 language
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 17:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <107drb9$2suao$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124829 |
On 8/11/2025 5:32 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 8/11/2025 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>> HHH(DDD);
>> return;
>> }
>>
>> _DDD()
>> [00002192] 55 push ebp
>> [00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>> [00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192 // push DDD
>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH
>> [0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04
>> [000021a2] 5d pop ebp
>> [000021a3] c3 ret
>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>
>> DDD correctly simulated by simulating termination analyzer
>> HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement final
>> halt state and DDD() halts.
>>
>> The x86 code proves beyond all doubt that DDD is emulated
>> by HHH according to the definition of the x86 language
>
> False, because HHH aborts in violation of the x86 language
I keep correcting you again any again and you immediately forget
Do you really have attention deficit disorder?
*DD is correctly emulated by HHH according to this spec*
Simulating Termination Analyzer HHH correctly simulates its input until:
(a) Detects a non-terminating behavior pattern: abort simulation and
return 0.
(b) Simulated input reaches its simulated "return" statement: return 1.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 18:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <107drpf$2t0g0$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124832 |
On 8/11/2025 6:37 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 8/11/2025 5:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 8/11/2025 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>> HHH(DDD);
>>> return;
>>> }
>>>
>>> _DDD()
>>> [00002192] 55 push ebp
>>> [00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>> [00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192 // push DDD
>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH
>>> [0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04
>>> [000021a2] 5d pop ebp
>>> [000021a3] c3 ret
>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>>
>>> DDD correctly simulated by simulating termination analyzer
>>> HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement final
>>> halt state and DDD() halts.
>>>
>>> The x86 code proves beyond all doubt that DDD is emulated
>>> by HHH according to the definition of the x86 language
>>
>> False, because HHH aborts in violation of the x86 language
>
> I keep correcting you again any again and you immediately forget
> Do you really have attention deficit disorder?
>
> *DD is correctly emulated by HHH according to this spec*
>
In other words, your spec violates the x86 language despite you saying
that HHH obeys it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2025-08-11 17:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <107ds6h$2u144$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #124833 |
On 8/11/2025 5:45 PM, dbush wrote:
> On 8/11/2025 6:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 8/11/2025 5:32 PM, dbush wrote:
>>> On 8/11/2025 6:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>> void DDD()
>>>> {
>>>> HHH(DDD);
>>>> return;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> _DDD()
>>>> [00002192] 55 push ebp
>>>> [00002193] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>> [00002195] 6892210000 push 00002192 // push DDD
>>>> [0000219a] e833f4ffff call 000015d2 // call HHH
>>>> [0000219f] 83c404 add esp,+04
>>>> [000021a2] 5d pop ebp
>>>> [000021a3] c3 ret
>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000021a3]
>>>>
>>>> DDD correctly simulated by simulating termination analyzer
>>>> HHH cannot possibly reach its own "return" statement final
>>>> halt state and DDD() halts.
>>>>
>>>> The x86 code proves beyond all doubt that DDD is emulated
>>>> by HHH according to the definition of the x86 language
>>>
>>> False, because HHH aborts in violation of the x86 language
>>
>> I keep correcting you again any again and you immediately forget
>> Do you really have attention deficit disorder?
>>
>> *DD is correctly emulated by HHH according to this spec*
>>
>
> In other words, your spec violates the x86 language despite you saying
> that HHH obeys it.
One cannot *arbitrarily* define to notion of a
simulating termination decider out-of-existence
within an honest dialogue. This crosses the line
into a dishonesty.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web