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 6 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 27 Next page →
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-27 12:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) |
| Message-ID | <JP2dncfyZIvLoJ38nZ2dnUU7-e_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37143 |
On 7/27/2021 11:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/27/21 9:05 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/27/2021 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > >>> Except that you haven't, in fact, you have provided a trace that shows >>> that P(P) does NOT specify an infinitely nested simulation for any H >>> that answers H(H^,H^) as non-halting. >>> >> Since I have proved that the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its >> final state while H remains in pure simulation mode two people have >> finally quit lying about this key issue. >> > > Wrong. Since H stops simulating P(P), it hasn't 'proved' that P(P) is > non-halting. > That your attention deficit disorder prevents you from actually seeing the words that I say until after I have repeated this words to you at least fifty times provides no actual rebuttal at all that these words that I say are in any way the slightest bit incorrect. Re-read the above words again and again hundreds and hundreds of times over many hours until you see every single detail how your paraphrase of my words is incorrect. I really believe in your case that the problem is ADD, alternatively you are simply a God damned liar. When I say that people are God damned liars I am referring to this bible verse: Revelation 21:8 KJV ...all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. "God damned" literally means that God has condemned a person to Hell. Even though I reject that bible verse as incorrect in that if God <is> love then God <has> no wrath, you might want to err on the safe side. -- 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 | 2021-07-27 11:17 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) |
| Message-ID | <i5YLI.77117$VU3.11059@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #37144 |
On 7/27/21 10:07 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/27/2021 11:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 7/27/21 9:05 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/27/2021 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >>>> Except that you haven't, in fact, you have provided a trace that shows >>>> that P(P) does NOT specify an infinitely nested simulation for any H >>>> that answers H(H^,H^) as non-halting. >>>> >>> Since I have proved that the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its >>> final state while H remains in pure simulation mode two people have >>> finally quit lying about this key issue. >>> >> >> Wrong. Since H stops simulating P(P), it hasn't 'proved' that P(P) is >> non-halting. >> > > That your attention deficit disorder prevents you from actually seeing > the words that I say until after I have repeated this words to you at > least fifty times provides no actual rebuttal at all that these words > that I say are in any way the slightest bit incorrect. > > Re-read the above words again and again hundreds and hundreds of times > over many hours until you see every single detail how your paraphrase of > my words is incorrect. > > I really believe in your case that the problem is ADD, alternatively you > are simply a God damned liar. > > When I say that people are God damned liars I am referring to this bible > verse: > > Revelation 21:8 KJV > ...all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire > and brimstone: which is the second death. > > "God damned" literally means that God has condemned a person to Hell. > Even though I reject that bible verse as incorrect in that if God <is> > love then God <has> no wrath, you might want to err on the safe side. > Since you have been shown guilty of lying, I would be careful about your condenmation of lying. First, I HAVE read the words you have written, and understand them. I can not say the same for you. I Have pointed out your errors, in detail. You response is merely to restate you point and to say that I obviously don't understand what you are saying. The question that H MUST be answering if you want it to it applicable to the Halting theory as discussed by Linz or Sipser, is "Does the Machine P(I), which is given as a representation to H, when run as the machine P(I), reach its final halting state in a finite number of steps, or does it not reach such a state in any finite number of steps?" For H^, the answer to H^(H^), built on an H that return the answer to H(H^,H^) that H^(H^) is a non-halting computation, is that H^(H^) will DEFINITELY Halt. Even you have shown this. The fact that H does a pure simulation of H^ (called P) for some number of steps doesn't show that H^(H^) is non-halting, as it simulated that computation for too few steps. The fact that for NO H, can H(H^,H^) (for the H^ built on that H) ever reach a halting state doesn't actually prove anything except that NO H can prove that its H^(H^) halts. The fact that it can't prove it doesn't mean it doesn't, as, per are discussion above, for ANY H that aborts it simulation and returns a non-halting answer, we can show that its H^(H^) does Halt. Also, for ANY H that doesn't abort its simulation, that H fails to return an answer to H(H^,H^) so that fact that these H^(H^) are non-halting doesn't matter, as their H still failed to be a correct decider by not answering. All your arguments have been fatally flawed by being filled with incorrect premises, including but not limited to: 1) That All Truth is Provable (this is a valid basis for limited forms of logic, but does not apply to the realm of Mathematics of the Natura Numbers). 2) That there must be an H that can get the right answer (the fallicy of assuming the anticentant). 3) That you can analyze H^ independent of the H that deciding it. (H^ is SPECIFICALLY a function of H, so EVERYTIME you change the behavior of H, you get a different H^, which you are now calling P to hide that fact). 4) That H can be both a pure simulator and a decider that aborts its simulation. (Something that is X until it does Y isn't really an X) 5) That you can replace the trace of a simulation with the trace of the simulated machine in a case where the simulator might not be a pure simulator for all time. ALL of these are fatal flaws in your argument. You just assume them, but have NEVER proved any of these. This makes your logic UNSOUND. The fact that you have been repeatedly told this but you still do it, makes YOU UNSOUND.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-27 13:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) |
| Message-ID | <7sudnSjP-u48zZ38nZ2dnUU7-XXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37151 |
On 7/27/2021 1:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/27/21 10:07 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 7/27/2021 11:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 7/27/21 9:05 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 7/27/2021 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> >>>>> Except that you haven't, in fact, you have provided a trace that shows >>>>> that P(P) does NOT specify an infinitely nested simulation for any H >>>>> that answers H(H^,H^) as non-halting. >>>>> >>>> Since I have proved that the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its >>>> final state while H remains in pure simulation mode two people have >>>> finally quit lying about this key issue. >>>> >>> >>> Wrong. Since H stops simulating P(P), it hasn't 'proved' that P(P) is >>> non-halting. >>> >> >> That your attention deficit disorder prevents you from actually seeing >> the words that I say until after I have repeated this words to you at >> least fifty times provides no actual rebuttal at all that these words >> that I say are in any way the slightest bit incorrect. >> >> Re-read the above words again and again hundreds and hundreds of times >> over many hours until you see every single detail how your paraphrase of >> my words is incorrect. >> >> I really believe in your case that the problem is ADD, alternatively you >> are simply a God damned liar. >> >> When I say that people are God damned liars I am referring to this bible >> verse: >> >> Revelation 21:8 KJV >> ...all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire >> and brimstone: which is the second death. >> >> "God damned" literally means that God has condemned a person to Hell. >> Even though I reject that bible verse as incorrect in that if God <is> >> love then God <has> no wrath, you might want to err on the safe side. >> > > Since you have been shown guilty of lying, I would be careful about your > condenmation of lying. > I have never been shown guilty of lying. > First, I HAVE read the words you have written, and understand them. I > can not say the same for you. *Then you would acknowledge rather than contradict these words* I have proved that the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state while H remains in pure simulation mode -- 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 | 2021-07-27 11:47 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) |
| Message-ID | <KwYLI.77118$VU3.35461@fx46.iad> |
| In reply to | #37152 |
On 7/27/21 11:29 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/27/2021 1:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 7/27/21 10:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/27/2021 11:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 7/27/21 9:05 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 7/27/2021 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Except that you haven't, in fact, you have provided a trace that >>>>>> shows >>>>>> that P(P) does NOT specify an infinitely nested simulation for any H >>>>>> that answers H(H^,H^) as non-halting. >>>>>> >>>>> Since I have proved that the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its >>>>> final state while H remains in pure simulation mode two people have >>>>> finally quit lying about this key issue. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Wrong. Since H stops simulating P(P), it hasn't 'proved' that P(P) is >>>> non-halting. >>>> >>> >>> That your attention deficit disorder prevents you from actually seeing >>> the words that I say until after I have repeated this words to you at >>> least fifty times provides no actual rebuttal at all that these words >>> that I say are in any way the slightest bit incorrect. >>> >>> Re-read the above words again and again hundreds and hundreds of times >>> over many hours until you see every single detail how your paraphrase of >>> my words is incorrect. >>> >>> I really believe in your case that the problem is ADD, alternatively you >>> are simply a God damned liar. >>> >>> When I say that people are God damned liars I am referring to this bible >>> verse: >>> >>> Revelation 21:8 KJV >>> ...all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire >>> and brimstone: which is the second death. >>> >>> "God damned" literally means that God has condemned a person to Hell. >>> Even though I reject that bible verse as incorrect in that if God <is> >>> love then God <has> no wrath, you might want to err on the safe side. >>> >> >> Since you have been shown guilty of lying, I would be careful about your >> condenmation of lying. >> > > I have never been shown guilty of lying. THAT is a lie. If I can prove it, will you promise to shut up? In one sense, nearly EVERY time you have said you have 'proved' something is a lie, since you don't use proper analytical proofs to make your arguments, just rhetorical arguments. You don't start with accepted truths and then combine them with accepted logical forms to reach your conclusions. What you do is assert claims that you claim are 'obvious' (but aren't to anyone but you) or things that are true with one meaning of the words but then use them in another. Perhaps you 'language' doesn't classify such things as a 'lie', but that just shows how far you are from the true meaning of the words you quoted. > >> First, I HAVE read the words you have written, and understand them. I >> can not say the same for you. > *Then you would acknowledge rather than contradict these words* > I have proved that the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its > final state while H remains in pure simulation mode > Which is irrelevant to the problem you are claiming to be solving. That a given H doesn't reach its final state just says that it can't prove the P(P) halts. It doesn't say that P(P) doesn't halt. That NO H reachs its final state, just says that NO H can prove that its P(P) Halts. It doesn't say that its P(P) doesn't halt. It IS a PROVEN fact that P(P) (or more properly H^(H^) for a P that is based on a H that says H(P,P) detects non-halting, is in fact a halting computation and thus H is wrong.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-27 14:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) |
| Message-ID | <g-WdnVu77YeIx538nZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37153 |
On 7/27/2021 1:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 7/27/21 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 1:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 7/27/21 10:07 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/2021 11:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 7/27/21 9:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/27/2021 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except that you haven't, in fact, you have provided a trace that
>>>>>>> shows
>>>>>>> that P(P) does NOT specify an infinitely nested simulation for any H
>>>>>>> that answers H(H^,H^) as non-halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since I have proved that the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its
>>>>>> final state while H remains in pure simulation mode two people have
>>>>>> finally quit lying about this key issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong. Since H stops simulating P(P), it hasn't 'proved' that P(P) is
>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That your attention deficit disorder prevents you from actually seeing
>>>> the words that I say until after I have repeated this words to you at
>>>> least fifty times provides no actual rebuttal at all that these words
>>>> that I say are in any way the slightest bit incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Re-read the above words again and again hundreds and hundreds of times
>>>> over many hours until you see every single detail how your paraphrase of
>>>> my words is incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> I really believe in your case that the problem is ADD, alternatively you
>>>> are simply a God damned liar.
>>>>
>>>> When I say that people are God damned liars I am referring to this bible
>>>> verse:
>>>>
>>>> Revelation 21:8 KJV
>>>> ...all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire
>>>> and brimstone: which is the second death.
>>>>
>>>> "God damned" literally means that God has condemned a person to Hell.
>>>> Even though I reject that bible verse as incorrect in that if God <is>
>>>> love then God <has> no wrath, you might want to err on the safe side.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Since you have been shown guilty of lying, I would be careful about your
>>> condenmation of lying.
>>>
>>
>> I have never been shown guilty of lying.
>
> THAT is a lie. If I can prove it, will you promise to shut up?
>
> In one sense, nearly EVERY time you have said you have 'proved'
> something is a lie, since you don't use proper analytical proofs to make
> your arguments, just rhetorical arguments. You don't start with accepted
> truths and then combine them with accepted logical forms to reach your
> conclusions. What you do is assert claims that you claim are 'obvious'
> (but aren't to anyone but you) or things that are true with one meaning
> of the words but then use them in another.
>
> Perhaps you 'language' doesn't classify such things as a 'lie', but that
> just shows how far you are from the true meaning of the words you quoted.
>
>>
>>> First, I HAVE read the words you have written, and understand them. I
>>> can not say the same for you.
>> *Then you would acknowledge rather than contradict these words*
>> I have proved that the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its
>> final state while H remains in pure simulation mode
>>
>
> Which is irrelevant to the problem you are claiming to be solving.
>
> That a given H doesn't reach its final state just says that it can't
> prove the P(P) halts. It doesn't say that P(P) doesn't halt.
>
That the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state while H
remains a pure simulator of this input conclusively proves that this
input never halts.
That P of int main(){ P(P); } does reach its final state does not
actually provide any evidence at all that H(P,P)==0 is incorrect.
That this is very hard to understand does not make it untrue.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-27 12:58 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) |
| Message-ID | <sdpogm$d7k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37156 |
On 7/27/21 12:10 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/27/2021 1:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/27/21 11:29 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2021 1:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/21 10:07 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/27/2021 11:29 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 7/27/21 9:05 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 7/27/2021 10:54 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except that you haven't, in fact, you have provided a trace that
>>>>>>>> shows
>>>>>>>> that P(P) does NOT specify an infinitely nested simulation for
>>>>>>>> any H
>>>>>>>> that answers H(H^,H^) as non-halting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Since I have proved that the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
>>>>>>> reach its
>>>>>>> final state while H remains in pure simulation mode two people have
>>>>>>> finally quit lying about this key issue.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong. Since H stops simulating P(P), it hasn't 'proved' that P(P) is
>>>>>> non-halting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That your attention deficit disorder prevents you from actually seeing
>>>>> the words that I say until after I have repeated this words to you at
>>>>> least fifty times provides no actual rebuttal at all that these words
>>>>> that I say are in any way the slightest bit incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> Re-read the above words again and again hundreds and hundreds of times
>>>>> over many hours until you see every single detail how your
>>>>> paraphrase of
>>>>> my words is incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>> I really believe in your case that the problem is ADD,
>>>>> alternatively you
>>>>> are simply a God damned liar.
>>>>>
>>>>> When I say that people are God damned liars I am referring to this
>>>>> bible
>>>>> verse:
>>>>>
>>>>> Revelation 21:8 KJV
>>>>> ...all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with
>>>>> fire
>>>>> and brimstone: which is the second death.
>>>>>
>>>>> "God damned" literally means that God has condemned a person to Hell.
>>>>> Even though I reject that bible verse as incorrect in that if God <is>
>>>>> love then God <has> no wrath, you might want to err on the safe side.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since you have been shown guilty of lying, I would be careful about
>>>> your
>>>> condenmation of lying.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have never been shown guilty of lying.
>>
>> THAT is a lie. If I can prove it, will you promise to shut up?
>>
>> In one sense, nearly EVERY time you have said you have 'proved'
>> something is a lie, since you don't use proper analytical proofs to make
>> your arguments, just rhetorical arguments. You don't start with accepted
>> truths and then combine them with accepted logical forms to reach your
>> conclusions. What you do is assert claims that you claim are 'obvious'
>> (but aren't to anyone but you) or things that are true with one meaning
>> of the words but then use them in another.
>>
>> Perhaps you 'language' doesn't classify such things as a 'lie', but that
>> just shows how far you are from the true meaning of the words you quoted.
>>
>>>
>>>> First, I HAVE read the words you have written, and understand them. I
>>>> can not say the same for you.
>>> *Then you would acknowledge rather than contradict these words*
>>> I have proved that the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its
>>> final state while H remains in pure simulation mode
>>>
>>
>> Which is irrelevant to the problem you are claiming to be solving.
>>
>> That a given H doesn't reach its final state just says that it can't
>> prove the P(P) halts. It doesn't say that P(P) doesn't halt.
>>
>
> That the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly reach its final state while H
> remains a pure simulator of this input conclusively proves that this
> input never halts.
THAT is a lie. The test for P(P) never halting is to run P(P)
>
> That P of int main(){ P(P); } does reach its final state does not
> actually provide any evidence at all that H(P,P)==0 is incorrect.
THAT is a LIE. The DEFINITION of the correct answer for a Halting
Decider is based on what the actual machine does.
The behavior of P(P) DEFINES the right answer for H(P,P).
THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF HALTING.
>
> That this is very hard to understand does not make it untrue.
>
That you don't understand this simple fact doesn't make what is actually
true untrue.
IT IS A FACT, the fact that P(P) halts shows that the only right answer
to H(P,P) is the answer HALTING.
THAT IS THE DEFINITION.
Anything else is UNSOUND and INCORRECT.
THERE, do you consider yourself a 'damned liar' because you have said
something that is incorrect by the 'scriptures' of Mathematics. Even if
you don't think that, most of the damned don't think they are, but they are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 16:23 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) |
| Message-ID | <87mtq68nte.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37152 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > I have never been shown guilty of lying. It's hard, in your case, to distinguish between ignorance and deception, but here are some top candidates: "I now have an actual H that decides actual halting for an actual (Ĥ, Ĥ) input pair." "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." "I provide the exact ... states after the Linz H.q0 and after Ĥ.qx ... showing exactly how the actual Linz H would correctly decide the actual Linz (Ĥ, Ĥ)." "I really do have a halting decider." "The non-halting decider that I defined accepts any and all non-halting inputs and rejects any and all halting inputs." "Ĥ does not copy its input" Maybe you could point out which of these are simply mistakes and which are deliberate untruths? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 11:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) |
| Message-ID | <Sq-dnbKtfMj_4pz8nZ2dnUU7-bfNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37187 |
On 7/28/2021 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> I have never been shown guilty of lying. > > It's hard, in your case, to distinguish between ignorance and deception, > but here are some top candidates: > > "I now have an actual H that decides actual halting for an actual (Ĥ, > Ĥ) input pair." > This still seems sufficiently true as elaborated below. > "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." > This uses a little poetic license in that what I actually had was the sufficiently complete C code that correctly decides the impossible counter-example inputs. At the time I knew that it was computationally equivalent to Turing machines yet was unaware that the concept of: "computationally equivalent to Turing machines" was understood to exist. As it currently stands I apparently did augment the conventional concept of Turing equivalence making it broader to encompass all computations that can be correctly completed in whatever memory is available. > "I provide the exact ... states after the Linz H.q0 and after Ĥ.qx > ... showing exactly how the actual Linz H would correctly decide the > actual Linz (Ĥ, Ĥ)." > This idea is elaborated to a much greater extent when H(P,P) correctly decides that its input cannot possibly reach its final state while H remains a pure simulator of this input. The same applies here: The input to H.qx(Ĥ, Ĥ) cannot possibly reach its final state while H.qx remains a pure simulator of this input. > "I really do have a halting decider." > > "The non-halting decider that I defined accepts any and all > non-halting inputs and rejects any and all halting inputs." > When we apply my design to the halting problem the conventional proofs utterly lose their entire basis thus no longer prove that a full halt decider cannot exist. > "Ĥ does not copy its input" > > Maybe you could point out which of these are simply mistakes and which > are deliberate untruths? > Ĥ does copy its input. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 09:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) |
| Message-ID | <sds0er$85m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37190 |
On 7/28/21 9:01 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/28/2021 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> I have never been shown guilty of lying. >> >> It's hard, in your case, to distinguish between ignorance and deception, >> but here are some top candidates: >> >> "I now have an actual H that decides actual halting for an actual (Ĥ, >> Ĥ) input pair." >> > > This still seems sufficiently true as elaborated below. But a LIE, as what you have isn't even a Turing Equivalent Computation. > >> "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." >> > > This uses a little poetic license in that what I actually had was the > sufficiently complete C code that correctly decides the impossible > counter-example inputs. No, it doesn't. Thus A LIE. > > At the time I knew that it was computationally equivalent to Turing > machines yet was unaware that the concept of: "computationally > equivalent to Turing machines" was understood to exist. You may have THOUGHT is was, but it isn't. You H/H^ are NOT equivalent to the Turing Machine defined. Perhaps (almost certainly) you are too ignorant to understand that they are, but the fact that you don't have the copy step, which is REQUIRED by the Turing Machine is a strong point that should make you think about it. > > As it currently stands I apparently did augment the conventional concept > of Turing equivalence making it broader to encompass all computations > that can be correctly completed in whatever memory is available. No, it seems you broke the requirements that they be actual computation per the definitipons of Computation Theory. > >> "I provide the exact ... states after the Linz H.q0 and after Ĥ.qx >> ... showing exactly how the actual Linz H would correctly decide the >> actual Linz (Ĥ, Ĥ)." >> > > This idea is elaborated to a much greater extent when H(P,P) correctly > decides that its input cannot possibly reach its final state while H > remains a pure simulator of this input. > Which doesn't matter, as that isn't the question that H is supposed to answer. All that says is that no H can prove that its H^ halts. But since not all Truth is Provable, that doesn't say anything about if any of those H^s halt, and we can actually PROVE that any H^ built on an H that gives H(H^,H^) as a non-halting answer actually does Halt, thus all such H are wrong. > The same applies here: The input to H.qx(Ĥ, Ĥ) cannot possibly reach its > final state while H.qx remains a pure simulator of this input. Right, If H is a pure simulator, the H^ will not halt, but that H never gives an answer to H(H^,H^) so was never right. Your argument ignores that fact that H^ is built on H, so changing H changes H^. > >> "I really do have a halting decider." >> >> "The non-halting decider that I defined accepts any and all >> non-halting inputs and rejects any and all halting inputs." >> > > When we apply my design to the halting problem the conventional proofs > utterly lose their entire basis thus no longer prove that a full halt > decider cannot exist. > >> "Ĥ does not copy its input" >> >> Maybe you could point out which of these are simply mistakes and which >> are deliberate untruths? >> > > Ĥ does copy its input. > WHERE? YOUR STATEMENT IS A LIE. Note, that the input it H^ is a FULL representation of the algorithm of H^ including that of H. Thus H is given two independent COPIES of this, not just the 'address' of this info twice. You have previous stated that it isn't allowed to make a copy of H, but that is REQUIRED to be a proper H^.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 21:38 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) |
| Message-ID | <87zgu66uoc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37190 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 7/28/2021 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> I have never been shown guilty of lying. >> It's hard, in your case, to distinguish between ignorance and deception, >> but here are some top candidates: >> "I now have an actual H that decides actual halting for an actual (Ĥ, >> Ĥ) input pair." >> > > This still seems sufficiently true as elaborated below. > >> "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." > > This uses a little poetic license in that what I actually had was the > sufficiently complete C code that correctly decides the impossible > counter-example inputs. Whereas the initial claim might be simply wrong, this -- the cover-up -- is a flat-out lie. It is abundantly clear that you were claiming to have an actual Turing machine. You even said you can provide all the state transitions: >> "I provide the exact ... states after the Linz H.q0 and after Ĥ.qx >> ... showing exactly how the actual Linz H would correctly decide the >> actual Linz (Ĥ, Ĥ)." This is meaningless for a scrap of C. And here's what you said a few days after having what you now claim is C code: "I am waiting to encode the UTM in C++ so that I can actually execute H on the input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ). This should take a week or two. It is not a universal halt decider, yet it is exactly and precisely the Peter Linz H and Ĥ, with H actually deciding input pair: (Ĥ, Ĥ)" This is nonsense unless you wanted the world to believe what you said. It's patently absurd to claim that you will write something in C++ that can run your C code "in a week of two". You are simply lying to cover your mistaken delusion. >> "I provide the exact ... states after the Linz H.q0 and after Ĥ.qx >> ... showing exactly how the actual Linz H would correctly decide the >> actual Linz (Ĥ, Ĥ)." > > This idea is elaborated to a much greater extent when H(P,P)... Still dodging the obvious lie. You were claiming to have an actual Turing machine. That's why you talked about exact states. You even named the states. It's a meaningless remark for C code. You were either lying back, then or you were just deluded and lied later when covering it up. And as the cover-up continued, the C vanished. It became an algorithm and then just a design. But you can clear some of this up. Show the world what "poetic licence" means you. Post the C code you had more than two and half years ago that you claimed was "a fully encoded pair of Turing Machines", "exactly and precisely the Peter Linz H and Ĥ". Post it now. >> "I really do have a halting decider." >> >> "The non-halting decider that I defined accepts any and all >> non-halting inputs and rejects any and all halting inputs." > > When we apply my design to the halting problem the conventional proofs > utterly lose their entire basis thus no longer prove that a full halt > decider cannot exist. Dodging the subject. You said you /have/ one -- not that one might exist. Was that true or was it a mistake? I suspect it was just another lie, but you can correct that perception by telling the world you were simply mistaken. >> "Ĥ does not copy its input" >> >> Maybe you could point out which of these are simply mistakes and which >> are deliberate untruths? > > Ĥ does copy its input. Thank you. You admit to a teeny tiny error, though one you argued about for quite some time and one you never admitted to at the time. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 16:14 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) |
| Message-ID | <G6GdnRpRW9FMVZz8nZ2dnUU7-U_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37215 |
On 7/28/2021 3:38 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 7/28/2021 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> I have never been shown guilty of lying. >>> It's hard, in your case, to distinguish between ignorance and deception, >>> but here are some top candidates: >>> "I now have an actual H that decides actual halting for an actual (Ĥ, >>> Ĥ) input pair." >>> >> >> This still seems sufficiently true as elaborated below. >> >>> "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." >> >> This uses a little poetic license in that what I actually had was the >> sufficiently complete C code that correctly decides the impossible >> counter-example inputs. > > Whereas the initial claim might be simply wrong, this -- the cover-up -- > is a flat-out lie. It is abundantly clear that you were claiming to > have an actual Turing machine. You even said you can provide all the > state transitions: That you chop the full context of this statement proves your bias towards rebuttal over honest dialogue. Bias is a form of deception. On 7/28/2021 11:01 AM, olcott wrote: > This uses a little poetic license in that what I actually had was the > sufficiently complete C code that correctly decides the impossible > counter-example inputs. > > At the time I knew that it was computationally equivalent to Turing > machines yet was unaware that the concept of: "computationally > equivalent to Turing machines" was understood to exist. > > As it currently stands I apparently did augment the conventional concept > of Turing equivalence making it broader to encompass all computations > that can be correctly completed in whatever memory is available. That what I had was computationally equivalent to what I claimed makes my claim sufficiently true. The halt deciding aspect of H is the essence and the heart of it. -- 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 | 2021-07-28 16:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) |
| Message-ID | <WKGdnYQ60_6LV5z8nZ2dnUU78YHNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37215 |
On 7/28/2021 3:38 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 7/28/2021 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> I have never been shown guilty of lying. >>> It's hard, in your case, to distinguish between ignorance and deception, >>> but here are some top candidates: >>> "I now have an actual H that decides actual halting for an actual (Ĥ, >>> Ĥ) input pair." >>> >> >> This still seems sufficiently true as elaborated below. >> >>> "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." >> >> This uses a little poetic license in that what I actually had was the >> sufficiently complete C code that correctly decides the impossible >> counter-example inputs. > > Whereas the initial claim might be simply wrong, this -- the cover-up -- > is a flat-out lie. It is abundantly clear that you were claiming to > have an actual Turing machine. You even said you can provide all the > state transitions: > >>> "I provide the exact ... states after the Linz H.q0 and after Ĥ.qx >>> ... showing exactly how the actual Linz H would correctly decide the >>> actual Linz (Ĥ, Ĥ)." > > This is meaningless for a scrap of C. And here's what you said a few > days after having what you now claim is C code: Again you dishonestly remove the key context: This is not C nitwit ! On 7/28/2021 11:01 AM, olcott wrote: > > The same applies here: The input to H.qx(Ĥ, Ĥ) cannot possibly > reach its final state while H.qx remains a pure simulator of > this input. Entirely on the basis of the unmodified Linz Ĥ it can be verified that while the halt decider at H.qx acts as a pure UTM of its input that H.qx(Ĥ, Ĥ) never halts. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 15:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) |
| Message-ID | <sdsk9i$925$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37219 |
On 7/28/21 2:20 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/28/2021 3:38 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> The same applies here: The input to H.qx(Ĥ, Ĥ) cannot possibly >> reach its final state while H.qx remains a pure simulator of >> this input. > > Entirely on the basis of the unmodified Linz Ĥ it can be verified that > while the halt decider at H.qx acts as a pure UTM of its input that > H.qx(Ĥ, Ĥ) never halts. > If H is a pure UTM, the H will never decide for H^, so it doesn't matter what H^ does. If H is NOT a pure UTM, deciding on the H^ built on one is meaningless, that H need to try to correctly decide on the H^ built from it. It doesn't matter that H acts like a UTM until it decides, it stil, it still isn't a pure UTM, and in particular, when H simulates the copy of H that is part of the machine it is simulating, if the simulating H presumes that H will NEVER stop simulating, when we KNOW that if it was allowed to run long enough, it will, then the simulating H has made an incorrect deduction and is thus using UNSOUND logic, and thus can be, as it is, WRONG. Fundamental issue, you reuse terminolgy and use the WRONG definition in places. FAIL. You really need to give EACH different version of H an appropriate variant name, and look at the ^ version of that. Either Hn or Hu for the H that doesn't abort, and maybe Ha for the H that does. From this, your statement becomes: We can show that Hn(Hn^,Hn^) will never halt and thus Hn^(Hn^) is non-halting and Ha can answer Ha(Hn^,Hn^) correctly as non-halting. This makes it clear that Ha hasn't done its job yet, as we are asking Ha(Ha^,Ha^) and it still says that Ha^(Ha^) is non-halting, even though we can show by running Ha^(Ha^) we can show that it is Halting, and thus Ha was wrong about Ha^(Ha^). The problem is that Ha makes the mistake of assuming that Ha^ and Hn^ behave the same, when they don't. YOU make the same mistake, as you seem to be blind to the real Truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-29 00:33 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) |
| Message-ID | <87v94u57zz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37219 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 7/28/2021 3:38 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 7/28/2021 10:23 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> I have never been shown guilty of lying. >>>> It's hard, in your case, to distinguish between ignorance and deception, >>>> but here are some top candidates: >>>> "I now have an actual H that decides actual halting for an actual (Ĥ, >>>> Ĥ) input pair." >>>> >>> >>> This still seems sufficiently true as elaborated below. >>> >>>> "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." >>> >>> This uses a little poetic license in that what I actually had was the >>> sufficiently complete C code that correctly decides the impossible >>> counter-example inputs. >> >> Whereas the initial claim might be simply wrong, this -- the cover-up -- >> is a flat-out lie. It is abundantly clear that you were claiming to >> have an actual Turing machine. You even said you can provide all the >> state transitions: >> >>>> "I provide the exact ... states after the Linz H.q0 and after Ĥ.qx >>>> ... showing exactly how the actual Linz H would correctly decide the >>>> actual Linz (Ĥ, Ĥ)." >> This is meaningless for a scrap of C. And here's what you said a few >> days after having what you now claim is C code: > > Again you dishonestly remove the key context: > > This is not C nitwit ! You said it was: "what I actually had was ... C code". You can't have it both ways. Did you have an "actual Turing machines" or "C code"? Do you realise that you are making it obvious that one of these is a lie? Clear it up. Post what you had in Dec 2018. You won't, of course because that will pin-point which claim was the false one. (It might even be both.) -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-27 11:16 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] |
| Message-ID | <sdpf12$ij8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37137 |
On 2021-07-27 09:24, olcott wrote:
> On 7/27/2021 4:42 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 27 July 2021 at 04:55:26 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-26 21:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have explained this totally several times now.
>>>> if H(P,P) != P(P)
>>>> incorrect input
>>>> else
>>>> correct input.
>>> Will you please explain what is meant by H(P,P) != P(P)?
>>>
>>> As written, it mean 'if the result returned by H(P, P) does not equal
>>> the result returned by P(P)', but as I said I *think* by P(P) you
>>> actually mean 'the halting status of P'.
>>>
>>> If that is what you mean then how is H(P,P) != P(P) supposed to be
>>> evaluated *by a Turing Machine*? Rice's Theorem is about what can be
>>> computed, not just about things that can be stated.
>>>
>>> H(P, P) gets P(P) wrong, but it doesn't *know* that it gets this wrong
>>> (otherwise you'd be able to easily fix H to get it right).
>>>
>> We've had a development. The claim that H(P,P) = false is correct when
>> P(P) halts has been modified.
>> Now we run H on P(P), and run P(P). If they match, then obviously H has
>> done its job. If they don't, then that means that the input is
>> "pathological".
>> The special case suggested by Linz has been detected.
>>
>> There are snags with this approach, of course. For example, if P(P) is
>> non-halting, how would you know when to terminate it? Ben said that
>> this suggestion always comes up (UCL is a pretty high status university
>> with the UK that attracts intelligent students).
>
> No one has ever gotten as far as I have. No one has ever previously
> shown that the input to a simulating halt decider specifies infinitely
> nested simulation to this halt decider in the HP counter-example cases.
>
> Any rebuttals to this assertion require complete citations.
>
> Since no one has ever previously accomplished this key insight this
> makes it impossible that anyone created any software system that
> correctly recognizes and reports this infinitely nested simulation.
>
> When the global simulator reports that the P of int main(){ P(P); }
> halts this is encoded here as P(P)==1
What exactly is the 'global simulator'?
You used to have something called a 'global halt decider' but according
to you this *also* wrongly decides that P(P) doesn't halt.
And in previous posts you've claimed that a 'pure simulation' of P(P)
doesn't halt. Now your saying that it *does* halt inside a 'global
simulator'? So what's the difference between a 'global' simulator and a
'pure simulator'? Why do you claim it halts in one and not in the other?
> When the local partial halt decider H reports that P(P) never halts
> this is encoded here as H(P,P)==0
>
> When they are out-of-sync for inputs with the pathological
> self-reference(Olcott 2004) error we say P(P) != H(P,P)
>
> We will show that this error is exactly the same as the Liar Paradox in
> that both Boolean values are contradicted.
>
> When P(P) != H(P,P) if we change H(P,P)==0 to correspond with P(P)==1
> then the P of int main(){ P(P); } never halts.
Again, does P(P) != H(P,P) mean that the halting status of P(P) doesn't
match H(P,P), or that the value returned by P(P) does not equal the
value returned by H(P, P)? [The equation means the latter, but I still
suspect you mean the former, but you refuse to clarify].
> Because P was intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever
> halt status value that H reports neither Boolean value is correct.
>
> This is exactly the same result as the Liar Paradox.
>
> Because it is true that no P ever halts unless some P is aborted it
> still seems to me that H(P,P)==0 is correct and the fact that the P of
> int main(){ P(P); } halts is the error.
>
> Because no P ever halts unless some P is aborted seems to prove that int
> main(){ P(P); } specifies a non-halting computation.
>
>> The suggestion is to detect
>> the Linz input and special case it.
>>
>
> I don't even have to write any more code. Whenever a human sees that
> H(P,P) reports 0 and the P of int main(){ P(P); } reaches its final
> state we know this is a case of the self-contradictory input
> pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error.
But a human can only recognize this discrepancy in cases where they can
shown that P(P) actually halts despite what H(P, P) does. How do you get
a Turing Machine to do this? That requires a Halt Detector which is
actually always correct to get the real answer to whether P(P) halts,
and currently your Halt Decider gets this wrong. So you're begging the
question here -- the approach requires an *accurate* universal halt
decider, which is exactly the thing you've been trying, but failing to
prove is possible despite the fact that it is know to be impossible.
André
> Applying this same idea to a fully elaborated complete halt decider
> would derive a halt decider where the only time that the input reaches a
> final state and the halt decider reports that this input never halts are
> the self-contradictory input pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004)
> error cases.
>
>
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-27 12:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] |
| Message-ID | <d46dnQp1b-ua3p38nZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37145 |
On 7/27/2021 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-07-27 09:24, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 4:42 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 27 July 2021 at 04:55:26 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-07-26 21:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have explained this totally several times now.
>>>>> if H(P,P) != P(P)
>>>>> incorrect input
>>>>> else
>>>>> correct input.
>>>> Will you please explain what is meant by H(P,P) != P(P)?
>>>>
>>>> As written, it mean 'if the result returned by H(P, P) does not equal
>>>> the result returned by P(P)', but as I said I *think* by P(P) you
>>>> actually mean 'the halting status of P'.
>>>>
>>>> If that is what you mean then how is H(P,P) != P(P) supposed to be
>>>> evaluated *by a Turing Machine*? Rice's Theorem is about what can be
>>>> computed, not just about things that can be stated.
>>>>
>>>> H(P, P) gets P(P) wrong, but it doesn't *know* that it gets this wrong
>>>> (otherwise you'd be able to easily fix H to get it right).
>>>>
>>> We've had a development. The claim that H(P,P) = false is correct when
>>> P(P) halts has been modified.
>>> Now we run H on P(P), and run P(P). If they match, then obviously H has
>>> done its job. If they don't, then that means that the input is
>>> "pathological".
>>> The special case suggested by Linz has been detected.
>>>
>>> There are snags with this approach, of course. For example, if P(P) is
>>> non-halting, how would you know when to terminate it? Ben said that
>>> this suggestion always comes up (UCL is a pretty high status university
>>> with the UK that attracts intelligent students).
>>
>> No one has ever gotten as far as I have. No one has ever previously
>> shown that the input to a simulating halt decider specifies infinitely
>> nested simulation to this halt decider in the HP counter-example cases.
>>
>> Any rebuttals to this assertion require complete citations.
>>
>> Since no one has ever previously accomplished this key insight this
>> makes it impossible that anyone created any software system that
>> correctly recognizes and reports this infinitely nested simulation.
>>
>> When the global simulator reports that the P of int main(){ P(P); }
>> halts this is encoded here as P(P)==1
>
> What exactly is the 'global simulator'?
>
> You used to have something called a 'global halt decider' but according
> to you this *also* wrongly decides that P(P) doesn't halt.
>
> And in previous posts you've claimed that a 'pure simulation' of P(P)
> doesn't halt. Now your saying that it *does* halt inside a 'global
> simulator'? So what's the difference between a 'global' simulator and a
> 'pure simulator'? Why do you claim it halts in one and not in the other?
>
>> When the local partial halt decider H reports that P(P) never halts
>> this is encoded here as H(P,P)==0
>>
>> When they are out-of-sync for inputs with the pathological
>> self-reference(Olcott 2004) error we say P(P) != H(P,P)
>>
>> We will show that this error is exactly the same as the Liar Paradox
>> in that both Boolean values are contradicted.
>>
>> When P(P) != H(P,P) if we change H(P,P)==0 to correspond with P(P)==1
>> then the P of int main(){ P(P); } never halts.
>
> Again, does P(P) != H(P,P) mean that the halting status of P(P) doesn't
> match H(P,P),
Since I already totally explained this immediately above and your
question is entirely based on your simply not bothering to pay attention
this is the only reply that I will make to your reply.
> or that the value returned by P(P) does not equal the
> value returned by H(P, P)? [The equation means the latter, but I still
> suspect you mean the former, but you refuse to clarify].
>
>> Because P was intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever
>> halt status value that H reports neither Boolean value is correct.
>>
>> This is exactly the same result as the Liar Paradox.
>>
>> Because it is true that no P ever halts unless some P is aborted it
>> still seems to me that H(P,P)==0 is correct and the fact that the P of
>> int main(){ P(P); } halts is the error.
>>
>> Because no P ever halts unless some P is aborted seems to prove that
>> int main(){ P(P); } specifies a non-halting computation.
>>
>>> The suggestion is to detect
>>> the Linz input and special case it.
>>>
>>
>> I don't even have to write any more code. Whenever a human sees that
>> H(P,P) reports 0 and the P of int main(){ P(P); } reaches its final
>> state we know this is a case of the self-contradictory input
>> pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error.
>
> But a human can only recognize this discrepancy in cases where they can
> shown that P(P) actually halts despite what H(P, P) does. How do you get
> a Turing Machine to do this? That requires a Halt Detector which is
> actually always correct to get the real answer to whether P(P) halts,
> and currently your Halt Decider gets this wrong. So you're begging the
> question here -- the approach requires an *accurate* universal halt
> decider, which is exactly the thing you've been trying, but failing to
> prove is possible despite the fact that it is know to be impossible.
>
> André
>
>> Applying this same idea to a fully elaborated complete halt decider
>> would derive a halt decider where the only time that the input reaches
>> a final state and the halt decider reports that this input never halts
>> are the self-contradictory input pathological self-reference(Olcott
>> 2004) error cases.
>>
>>
>
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-27 13:42 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] |
| Message-ID | <sdpnjb$1q3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37147 |
On 2021-07-27 11:31, olcott wrote:
> On 7/27/2021 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-07-27 09:24, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2021 4:42 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>> On Tuesday, 27 July 2021 at 04:55:26 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>> On 2021-07-26 21:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have explained this totally several times now.
>>>>>> if H(P,P) != P(P)
>>>>>> incorrect input
>>>>>> else
>>>>>> correct input.
>>>>> Will you please explain what is meant by H(P,P) != P(P)?
>>>>>
>>>>> As written, it mean 'if the result returned by H(P, P) does not equal
>>>>> the result returned by P(P)', but as I said I *think* by P(P) you
>>>>> actually mean 'the halting status of P'.
>>>>>
>>>>> If that is what you mean then how is H(P,P) != P(P) supposed to be
>>>>> evaluated *by a Turing Machine*? Rice's Theorem is about what can be
>>>>> computed, not just about things that can be stated.
>>>>>
>>>>> H(P, P) gets P(P) wrong, but it doesn't *know* that it gets this wrong
>>>>> (otherwise you'd be able to easily fix H to get it right).
>>>>>
>>>> We've had a development. The claim that H(P,P) = false is correct when
>>>> P(P) halts has been modified.
>>>> Now we run H on P(P), and run P(P). If they match, then obviously H has
>>>> done its job. If they don't, then that means that the input is
>>>> "pathological".
>>>> The special case suggested by Linz has been detected.
>>>>
>>>> There are snags with this approach, of course. For example, if P(P) is
>>>> non-halting, how would you know when to terminate it? Ben said that
>>>> this suggestion always comes up (UCL is a pretty high status university
>>>> with the UK that attracts intelligent students).
>>>
>>> No one has ever gotten as far as I have. No one has ever previously
>>> shown that the input to a simulating halt decider specifies
>>> infinitely nested simulation to this halt decider in the HP
>>> counter-example cases.
>>>
>>> Any rebuttals to this assertion require complete citations.
>>>
>>> Since no one has ever previously accomplished this key insight this
>>> makes it impossible that anyone created any software system that
>>> correctly recognizes and reports this infinitely nested simulation.
>>>
>>> When the global simulator reports that the P of int main(){ P(P); }
>>> halts this is encoded here as P(P)==1
>>
>> What exactly is the 'global simulator'?
>>
>> You used to have something called a 'global halt decider' but
>> according to you this *also* wrongly decides that P(P) doesn't halt.
>>
>> And in previous posts you've claimed that a 'pure simulation' of P(P)
>> doesn't halt. Now your saying that it *does* halt inside a 'global
>> simulator'? So what's the difference between a 'global' simulator and
>> a 'pure simulator'? Why do you claim it halts in one and not in the
>> other?
>>
>>> When the local partial halt decider H reports that P(P) never halts
>>> this is encoded here as H(P,P)==0
>>>
>>> When they are out-of-sync for inputs with the pathological
>>> self-reference(Olcott 2004) error we say P(P) != H(P,P)
>>>
>>> We will show that this error is exactly the same as the Liar Paradox
>>> in that both Boolean values are contradicted.
>>>
>>> When P(P) != H(P,P) if we change H(P,P)==0 to correspond with P(P)==1
>>> then the P of int main(){ P(P); } never halts.
>>
>> Again, does P(P) != H(P,P) mean that the halting status of P(P)
>> doesn't match H(P,P),
>
> Since I already totally explained this immediately above and your
Not clearly, you didn't. P(P) != H(P, P) is an abuse of notation,
because you're comparing apples and oranges. This should either mean
'the halting status of P(P) doesn't equal the halting status of H(P,P)'
or 'the return value of P(P) doesn't equal the return value of H(P, P)'
You want it to mean 'the halting status of P(P) doesn't equal the return
value of H(P, P)'. So I assume that H(P, P) == 0 can mean either H(P, P)
returns 0, signifying that P(P) doesn't halt, or that H(P, P) itself
doesn't halt, and that we're just supposed to guess?
So why don't you actually answer the questions I asked. What is a
'global simulator' and how can it say that P(P) halts when you've
previously claimed that in a simulator P(P) doesn't halt?
André
> question is entirely based on your simply not bothering to pay attention
> this is the only reply that I will make to your reply.
>
>> or that the value returned by P(P) does not equal the value returned
>> by H(P, P)? [The equation means the latter, but I still suspect you
>> mean the former, but you refuse to clarify].
>>
>>> Because P was intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever
>>> halt status value that H reports neither Boolean value is correct.
>>>
>>> This is exactly the same result as the Liar Paradox.
>>>
>>> Because it is true that no P ever halts unless some P is aborted it
>>> still seems to me that H(P,P)==0 is correct and the fact that the P
>>> of int main(){ P(P); } halts is the error.
>>>
>>> Because no P ever halts unless some P is aborted seems to prove that
>>> int main(){ P(P); } specifies a non-halting computation.
>>>
>>>> The suggestion is to detect
>>>> the Linz input and special case it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't even have to write any more code. Whenever a human sees that
>>> H(P,P) reports 0 and the P of int main(){ P(P); } reaches its final
>>> state we know this is a case of the self-contradictory input
>>> pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error.
>>
>> But a human can only recognize this discrepancy in cases where they
>> can shown that P(P) actually halts despite what H(P, P) does. How do
>> you get a Turing Machine to do this? That requires a Halt Detector
>> which is actually always correct to get the real answer to whether
>> P(P) halts, and currently your Halt Decider gets this wrong. So you're
>> begging the question here -- the approach requires an *accurate*
>> universal halt decider, which is exactly the thing you've been trying,
>> but failing to prove is possible despite the fact that it is know to
>> be impossible.
>>
>> André
>>
>>> Applying this same idea to a fully elaborated complete halt decider
>>> would derive a halt decider where the only time that the input
>>> reaches a final state and the halt decider reports that this input
>>> never halts are the self-contradictory input pathological
>>> self-reference(Olcott 2004) error cases.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-27 17:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] |
| Message-ID | <2sKdna9mxLcIG538nZ2dnUU78c_NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37160 |
On 7/27/2021 2:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-07-27 11:31, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-27 09:24, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/2021 4:42 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 July 2021 at 04:55:26 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-07-26 21:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have explained this totally several times now.
>>>>>>> if H(P,P) != P(P)
>>>>>>> incorrect input
>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>> correct input.
>>>>>> Will you please explain what is meant by H(P,P) != P(P)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As written, it mean 'if the result returned by H(P, P) does not equal
>>>>>> the result returned by P(P)', but as I said I *think* by P(P) you
>>>>>> actually mean 'the halting status of P'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that is what you mean then how is H(P,P) != P(P) supposed to be
>>>>>> evaluated *by a Turing Machine*? Rice's Theorem is about what can be
>>>>>> computed, not just about things that can be stated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H(P, P) gets P(P) wrong, but it doesn't *know* that it gets this
>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>> (otherwise you'd be able to easily fix H to get it right).
>>>>>>
>>>>> We've had a development. The claim that H(P,P) = false is correct when
>>>>> P(P) halts has been modified.
>>>>> Now we run H on P(P), and run P(P). If they match, then obviously H
>>>>> has
>>>>> done its job. If they don't, then that means that the input is
>>>>> "pathological".
>>>>> The special case suggested by Linz has been detected.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are snags with this approach, of course. For example, if P(P) is
>>>>> non-halting, how would you know when to terminate it? Ben said that
>>>>> this suggestion always comes up (UCL is a pretty high status
>>>>> university
>>>>> with the UK that attracts intelligent students).
>>>>
>>>> No one has ever gotten as far as I have. No one has ever previously
>>>> shown that the input to a simulating halt decider specifies
>>>> infinitely nested simulation to this halt decider in the HP
>>>> counter-example cases.
>>>>
>>>> Any rebuttals to this assertion require complete citations.
>>>>
>>>> Since no one has ever previously accomplished this key insight this
>>>> makes it impossible that anyone created any software system that
>>>> correctly recognizes and reports this infinitely nested simulation.
>>>>
>>>> When the global simulator reports that the P of int main(){ P(P); }
>>>> halts this is encoded here as P(P)==1
>>>
>>> What exactly is the 'global simulator'?
>>>
>>> You used to have something called a 'global halt decider' but
>>> according to you this *also* wrongly decides that P(P) doesn't halt.
>>>
>>> And in previous posts you've claimed that a 'pure simulation' of P(P)
>>> doesn't halt. Now your saying that it *does* halt inside a 'global
>>> simulator'? So what's the difference between a 'global' simulator and
>>> a 'pure simulator'? Why do you claim it halts in one and not in the
>>> other?
>>>
>>>> When the local partial halt decider H reports that P(P) never halts
>>>> this is encoded here as H(P,P)==0
>>>>
>>>> When they are out-of-sync for inputs with the pathological
>>>> self-reference(Olcott 2004) error we say P(P) != H(P,P)
>>>>
>>>> We will show that this error is exactly the same as the Liar Paradox
>>>> in that both Boolean values are contradicted.
>>>>
>>>> When P(P) != H(P,P) if we change H(P,P)==0 to correspond with P(P)==1
>>>> then the P of int main(){ P(P); } never halts.
>>>
>>> Again, does P(P) != H(P,P) mean that the halting status of P(P)
>>> doesn't match H(P,P),
>>
>> Since I already totally explained this immediately above and your
>
> Not clearly, you didn't. P(P) != H(P, P) is an abuse of notation,
I stipulated what the notation means, You grossly disrespected me by
making sure to ignore what I said.
I find that tolerating this degree of gross disrespect is not conducive
to an honest dialogue.
Once we get past this point we can move on to the next.
> because you're comparing apples and oranges. This should either mean
> 'the halting status of P(P) doesn't equal the halting status of H(P,P)'
> or 'the return value of P(P) doesn't equal the return value of H(P, P)'
> You want it to mean 'the halting status of P(P) doesn't equal the return
> value of H(P, P)'. So I assume that H(P, P) == 0 can mean either H(P, P)
> returns 0, signifying that P(P) doesn't halt, or that H(P, P) itself
> doesn't halt, and that we're just supposed to guess?
>
> So why don't you actually answer the questions I asked. What is a
> 'global simulator' and how can it say that P(P) halts when you've
> previously claimed that in a simulator P(P) doesn't halt?
>
> André
>
>> question is entirely based on your simply not bothering to pay
>> attention this is the only reply that I will make to your reply.
>>
>>> or that the value returned by P(P) does not equal the value returned
>>> by H(P, P)? [The equation means the latter, but I still suspect you
>>> mean the former, but you refuse to clarify].
>>>
>>>> Because P was intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever
>>>> halt status value that H reports neither Boolean value is correct.
>>>>
>>>> This is exactly the same result as the Liar Paradox.
>>>>
>>>> Because it is true that no P ever halts unless some P is aborted it
>>>> still seems to me that H(P,P)==0 is correct and the fact that the P
>>>> of int main(){ P(P); } halts is the error.
>>>>
>>>> Because no P ever halts unless some P is aborted seems to prove that
>>>> int main(){ P(P); } specifies a non-halting computation.
>>>>
>>>>> The suggestion is to detect
>>>>> the Linz input and special case it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't even have to write any more code. Whenever a human sees that
>>>> H(P,P) reports 0 and the P of int main(){ P(P); } reaches its final
>>>> state we know this is a case of the self-contradictory input
>>>> pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error.
>>>
>>> But a human can only recognize this discrepancy in cases where they
>>> can shown that P(P) actually halts despite what H(P, P) does. How do
>>> you get a Turing Machine to do this? That requires a Halt Detector
>>> which is actually always correct to get the real answer to whether
>>> P(P) halts, and currently your Halt Decider gets this wrong. So
>>> you're begging the question here -- the approach requires an
>>> *accurate* universal halt decider, which is exactly the thing you've
>>> been trying, but failing to prove is possible despite the fact that
>>> it is know to be impossible.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>>> Applying this same idea to a fully elaborated complete halt decider
>>>> would derive a halt decider where the only time that the input
>>>> reaches a final state and the halt decider reports that this input
>>>> never halts are the self-contradictory input pathological
>>>> self-reference(Olcott 2004) error cases.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
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 | 2021-07-27 22:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] |
| Message-ID | <NpmdnV9AwpJkV538nZ2dnUU7-QXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37160 |
On 7/27/2021 2:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-07-27 11:31, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/27/2021 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-27 09:24, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 7/27/2021 4:42 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 July 2021 at 04:55:26 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> On 2021-07-26 21:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have explained this totally several times now.
>>>>>>> if H(P,P) != P(P)
>>>>>>> incorrect input
>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>> correct input.
>>>>>> Will you please explain what is meant by H(P,P) != P(P)?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As written, it mean 'if the result returned by H(P, P) does not equal
>>>>>> the result returned by P(P)', but as I said I *think* by P(P) you
>>>>>> actually mean 'the halting status of P'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If that is what you mean then how is H(P,P) != P(P) supposed to be
>>>>>> evaluated *by a Turing Machine*? Rice's Theorem is about what can be
>>>>>> computed, not just about things that can be stated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H(P, P) gets P(P) wrong, but it doesn't *know* that it gets this
>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>> (otherwise you'd be able to easily fix H to get it right).
>>>>>>
>>>>> We've had a development. The claim that H(P,P) = false is correct when
>>>>> P(P) halts has been modified.
>>>>> Now we run H on P(P), and run P(P). If they match, then obviously H
>>>>> has
>>>>> done its job. If they don't, then that means that the input is
>>>>> "pathological".
>>>>> The special case suggested by Linz has been detected.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are snags with this approach, of course. For example, if P(P) is
>>>>> non-halting, how would you know when to terminate it? Ben said that
>>>>> this suggestion always comes up (UCL is a pretty high status
>>>>> university
>>>>> with the UK that attracts intelligent students).
>>>>
>>>> No one has ever gotten as far as I have. No one has ever previously
>>>> shown that the input to a simulating halt decider specifies
>>>> infinitely nested simulation to this halt decider in the HP
>>>> counter-example cases.
>>>>
>>>> Any rebuttals to this assertion require complete citations.
>>>>
>>>> Since no one has ever previously accomplished this key insight this
>>>> makes it impossible that anyone created any software system that
>>>> correctly recognizes and reports this infinitely nested simulation.
>>>>
>>>> When the global simulator reports that the P of int main(){ P(P); }
>>>> halts this is encoded here as P(P)==1
>>>
>>> What exactly is the 'global simulator'?
>>>
>>> You used to have something called a 'global halt decider' but
>>> according to you this *also* wrongly decides that P(P) doesn't halt.
>>>
>>> And in previous posts you've claimed that a 'pure simulation' of P(P)
>>> doesn't halt. Now your saying that it *does* halt inside a 'global
>>> simulator'? So what's the difference between a 'global' simulator and
>>> a 'pure simulator'? Why do you claim it halts in one and not in the
>>> other?
>>>
>>>> When the local partial halt decider H reports that P(P) never halts
>>>> this is encoded here as H(P,P)==0
>>>>
>>>> When they are out-of-sync for inputs with the pathological
>>>> self-reference(Olcott 2004) error we say P(P) != H(P,P)
>>>>
>>>> We will show that this error is exactly the same as the Liar Paradox
>>>> in that both Boolean values are contradicted.
>>>>
>>>> When P(P) != H(P,P) if we change H(P,P)==0 to correspond with P(P)==1
>>>> then the P of int main(){ P(P); } never halts.
>>>
>>> Again, does P(P) != H(P,P) mean that the halting status of P(P)
>>> doesn't match H(P,P),
>>
>> Since I already totally explained this immediately above and your
>
> Not clearly, you didn't. P(P) != H(P, P) is an abuse of notation,
> because you're comparing apples and oranges. This should either mean
> 'the halting status of P(P) doesn't equal the halting status of H(P,P)'
Simulate(P,P)==1 indicates that the global simulator embedded in the
x86utm operating system has determined that the function called by main
has reached its final state.
There will not actually be any function call Simulate(P,P) per say and
this code has not been designed yet.
The very easy part that you should have understood many messages ago is
that when the code somehow determines that the halt decider return value
is not consistent with the behavior of P this is freaking used to
freaking refute Rice.
Yo argued against even considering Rice because you Are stuck in
rebuttal mode. This bias is a form of dishonesty.
> or 'the return value of P(P) doesn't equal the return value of H(P, P)'
> You want it to mean 'the halting status of P(P) doesn't equal the return
> value of H(P, P)'. So I assume that H(P, P) == 0 can mean either H(P, P)
> returns 0, signifying that P(P) doesn't halt, or that H(P, P) itself
> doesn't halt, and that we're just supposed to guess?
>
> So why don't you actually answer the questions I asked. What is a
> 'global simulator' and how can it say that P(P) halts when you've
> previously claimed that in a simulator P(P) doesn't halt?
>
> André
>
>> question is entirely based on your simply not bothering to pay
>> attention this is the only reply that I will make to your reply.
>>
>>> or that the value returned by P(P) does not equal the value returned
>>> by H(P, P)? [The equation means the latter, but I still suspect you
>>> mean the former, but you refuse to clarify].
>>>
>>>> Because P was intentionally defined to do the opposite of whatever
>>>> halt status value that H reports neither Boolean value is correct.
>>>>
>>>> This is exactly the same result as the Liar Paradox.
>>>>
>>>> Because it is true that no P ever halts unless some P is aborted it
>>>> still seems to me that H(P,P)==0 is correct and the fact that the P
>>>> of int main(){ P(P); } halts is the error.
>>>>
>>>> Because no P ever halts unless some P is aborted seems to prove that
>>>> int main(){ P(P); } specifies a non-halting computation.
>>>>
>>>>> The suggestion is to detect
>>>>> the Linz input and special case it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't even have to write any more code. Whenever a human sees that
>>>> H(P,P) reports 0 and the P of int main(){ P(P); } reaches its final
>>>> state we know this is a case of the self-contradictory input
>>>> pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error.
>>>
>>> But a human can only recognize this discrepancy in cases where they
>>> can shown that P(P) actually halts despite what H(P, P) does. How do
>>> you get a Turing Machine to do this? That requires a Halt Detector
>>> which is actually always correct to get the real answer to whether
>>> P(P) halts, and currently your Halt Decider gets this wrong. So
>>> you're begging the question here -- the approach requires an
>>> *accurate* universal halt decider, which is exactly the thing you've
>>> been trying, but failing to prove is possible despite the fact that
>>> it is know to be impossible.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>>> Applying this same idea to a fully elaborated complete halt decider
>>>> would derive a halt decider where the only time that the input
>>>> reaches a final state and the halt decider reports that this input
>>>> never halts are the self-contradictory input pathological
>>>> self-reference(Olcott 2004) error cases.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-27 21:39 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] |
| Message-ID | <sdqjgu$mun$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37178 |
On 2021-07-27 21:11, olcott wrote:
> On 7/27/2021 2:42 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-07-27 11:31, olcott wrote:
>>> On 7/27/2021 12:16 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 2021-07-27 09:24, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 7/27/2021 4:42 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>> On Tuesday, 27 July 2021 at 04:55:26 UTC+1, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2021-07-26 21:31, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I have explained this totally several times now.
>>>>>>>> if H(P,P) != P(P)
>>>>>>>> incorrect input
>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>> correct input.
>>>>>>> Will you please explain what is meant by H(P,P) != P(P)?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As written, it mean 'if the result returned by H(P, P) does not
>>>>>>> equal
>>>>>>> the result returned by P(P)', but as I said I *think* by P(P) you
>>>>>>> actually mean 'the halting status of P'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If that is what you mean then how is H(P,P) != P(P) supposed to be
>>>>>>> evaluated *by a Turing Machine*? Rice's Theorem is about what can be
>>>>>>> computed, not just about things that can be stated.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H(P, P) gets P(P) wrong, but it doesn't *know* that it gets this
>>>>>>> wrong
>>>>>>> (otherwise you'd be able to easily fix H to get it right).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> We've had a development. The claim that H(P,P) = false is correct
>>>>>> when
>>>>>> P(P) halts has been modified.
>>>>>> Now we run H on P(P), and run P(P). If they match, then obviously
>>>>>> H has
>>>>>> done its job. If they don't, then that means that the input is
>>>>>> "pathological".
>>>>>> The special case suggested by Linz has been detected.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There are snags with this approach, of course. For example, if
>>>>>> P(P) is
>>>>>> non-halting, how would you know when to terminate it? Ben said that
>>>>>> this suggestion always comes up (UCL is a pretty high status
>>>>>> university
>>>>>> with the UK that attracts intelligent students).
>>>>>
>>>>> No one has ever gotten as far as I have. No one has ever previously
>>>>> shown that the input to a simulating halt decider specifies
>>>>> infinitely nested simulation to this halt decider in the HP
>>>>> counter-example cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> Any rebuttals to this assertion require complete citations.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since no one has ever previously accomplished this key insight this
>>>>> makes it impossible that anyone created any software system that
>>>>> correctly recognizes and reports this infinitely nested simulation.
>>>>>
>>>>> When the global simulator reports that the P of int main(){ P(P); }
>>>>> halts this is encoded here as P(P)==1
>>>>
>>>> What exactly is the 'global simulator'?
>>>>
>>>> You used to have something called a 'global halt decider' but
>>>> according to you this *also* wrongly decides that P(P) doesn't halt.
>>>>
>>>> And in previous posts you've claimed that a 'pure simulation' of
>>>> P(P) doesn't halt. Now your saying that it *does* halt inside a
>>>> 'global simulator'? So what's the difference between a 'global'
>>>> simulator and a 'pure simulator'? Why do you claim it halts in one
>>>> and not in the other?
>>>>
>>>>> When the local partial halt decider H reports that P(P) never halts
>>>>> this is encoded here as H(P,P)==0
>>>>>
>>>>> When they are out-of-sync for inputs with the pathological
>>>>> self-reference(Olcott 2004) error we say P(P) != H(P,P)
>>>>>
>>>>> We will show that this error is exactly the same as the Liar
>>>>> Paradox in that both Boolean values are contradicted.
>>>>>
>>>>> When P(P) != H(P,P) if we change H(P,P)==0 to correspond with P(P)==1
>>>>> then the P of int main(){ P(P); } never halts.
>>>>
>>>> Again, does P(P) != H(P,P) mean that the halting status of P(P)
>>>> doesn't match H(P,P),
>>>
>>> Since I already totally explained this immediately above and your
>>
>> Not clearly, you didn't. P(P) != H(P, P) is an abuse of notation,
>> because you're comparing apples and oranges. This should either mean
>> 'the halting status of P(P) doesn't equal the halting status of H(P,P)'
>
> Simulate(P,P)==1 indicates that the global simulator embedded in the
> x86utm operating system has determined that the function called by main
> has reached its final state.
So does P(P) halt or not?
You have on the one hand acknowledged that it does, while at the same
time claimed that it doesn't halt in a 'pure simulator'. So if your
'global simulator' is not a pure simulator, what kind of simulator is it?
> There will not actually be any function call Simulate(P,P) per say and
> this code has not been designed yet.
>
> The very easy part that you should have understood many messages ago is
> that when the code somehow determines that the halt decider return value
> is not consistent with the behavior of P this is freaking used to
> freaking refute Rice.
The problem is that H isn't doing the detecting. To the extent that what
you say makes sense it is some other software which tests the result of
H(P,P) against the result of your 'global simulator'. But *that* piece
of software will have its *own* H_Hat which will be just as susceptible
to the Linz proof as your H.
Every putative halt decider has its *own* H_Hat which it will not be
able to decide, which is perfectly in line with Rice.
André
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web