Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #38464 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-08-28 11:47 -0500 |
| Last post | 2021-08-28 20:00 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 733 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 11:47 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 14:52 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 14:12 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 16:24 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 15:33 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 16:46 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 16:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 18:29 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 17:38 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 17:38 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 19:32 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 18:46 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 18:51 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 20:07 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 23:00 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 07:00 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 08:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-29 16:20 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 10:30 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-29 17:19 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 11:36 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-30 01:00 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 20:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-31 03:17 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 21:35 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-31 04:04 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 22:20 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-30 21:35 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 23:00 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-30 22:19 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 23:31 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-30 22:45 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 09:24 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 09:07 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 11:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 11:11 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 10:31 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 11:49 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 11:00 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 12:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 12:40 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 14:11 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 14:08 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 16:34 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 16:40 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 18:29 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 17:39 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 19:16 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 20:47 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 18:52 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 21:23 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-31 14:17 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 16:48 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 19:26 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 21:08 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ relative invocation order ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 19:23 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 06:35 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-31 14:55 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 09:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 20:59 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-01 03:28 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 21:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-08-31 23:05 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 11:22 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 12:43 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 12:06 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ air tight proof ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 15:42 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-28 18:42 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 22:52 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-28 22:07 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 23:13 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-28 22:32 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ dishonesty ? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 23:27 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ dishonesty ? ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-28 22:34 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ dishonesty ? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-28 23:50 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ dishonesty ? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 08:20 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 13:53 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 13:32 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 14:40 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 13:48 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 14:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 16:42 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 16:16 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 18:35 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 20:39 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 21:52 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 19:54 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 21:14 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 22:35 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 20:38 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 21:51 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 21:00 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 22:17 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-29 21:43 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-29 22:54 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-30 06:24 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 09:02 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-30 20:13 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-31 03:12 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 21:30 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-31 03:53 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-30 22:11 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 06:38 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-31 15:04 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 09:30 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-31 21:03 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-01 03:45 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 22:09 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 22:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-09-01 07:51 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 21:47 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 23:10 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 22:26 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-31 23:32 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-31 22:52 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 08:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 08:54 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 09:13 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 19:04 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-01 02:19 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 08:27 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 19:06 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-02 02:40 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 09:15 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 16:19 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 10:34 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 22:02 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 18:12 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 22:00 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 16:46 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 18:41 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 17:54 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 19:02 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-04 16:25 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 22:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-05 13:02 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 15:13 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 17:36 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Mike <usenet@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-05 23:37 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-09-05 20:16 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 09:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-09-06 11:06 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 10:26 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 12:04 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 14:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 14:22 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 15:50 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 15:37 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 16:59 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 16:58 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 18:21 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 17:39 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 18:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:04 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 18:13 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 19:46 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 19:07 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 20:32 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 20:23 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 21:30 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 21:34 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 21:49 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 22:08 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 23:35 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 23:36 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 08:51 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 08:14 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 09:26 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-07 08:18 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 10:34 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 19:04 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 09:39 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 11:02 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 10:46 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 12:01 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 12:14 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 13:17 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 13:39 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 14:49 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 15:07 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ][ Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 19:06 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 19:16 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 18:46 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 20:49 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 05:59 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 09:13 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 19:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 18:38 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 20:52 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 06:40 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 06:30 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-09-06 21:47 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-09-06 21:31 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 22:32 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 21:31 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pure functions ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 19:56 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 19:39 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 19:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 21:38 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 20:50 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 20:53 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 22:52 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 21:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 23:37 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:46 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 06:04 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 11:10 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 09:00 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 16:30 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 10:45 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 19:11 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 18:44 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 20:55 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 01:25 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 19:39 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 21:01 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 03:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 19:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 18:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 21:03 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 22:48 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 21:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 23:06 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:14 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 23:45 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:51 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 06:10 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 09:26 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 09:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ refuted Rice's theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 11:21 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 00:09 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 23:27 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 16:33 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 10:52 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 13:03 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 19:48 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 14:05 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 23:46 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 10:00 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 11:22 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 21:24 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 16:06 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 19:10 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 18:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:10 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-02 09:10 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ pathological inputs ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 11:32 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 21:38 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 06:42 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-01 15:34 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-01 08:45 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 09:52 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 19:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 06:38 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 06:21 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-01 15:44 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 10:05 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 19:43 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 01:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 20:34 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 02:42 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 21:18 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-01 22:34 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Pathological Input ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-01 21:53 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Pathological Input ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-01 22:56 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Pathological Input ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 00:09 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Pathological Input ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-01 23:48 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Pathological Input ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 10:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Pathological Input ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 06:17 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 12:28 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 10:23 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-02 22:00 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 18:20 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-02 17:46 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 19:01 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-02 18:20 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 19:32 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-02 19:10 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 22:21 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 01:27 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 19:40 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 02:05 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 20:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 02:29 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 20:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 22:24 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 21:26 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 22:54 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 21:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 23:15 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 03:42 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 21:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 23:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 22:18 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 23:52 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 23:09 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-02 22:59 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:05 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 12:49 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 15:11 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 16:58 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 16:23 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 17:31 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 06:32 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-03 04:47 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 14:41 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:20 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 15:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 08:51 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 08:09 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:24 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 08:33 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:46 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 09:12 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 10:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 09:43 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 15:01 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 14:24 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 15:31 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 14:58 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 16:18 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 17:43 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 15:46 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 17:14 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 18:46 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-03 17:00 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 18:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-09-03 17:45 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 22:36 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 17:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 00:02 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 19:03 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 01:20 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 19:27 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 21:10 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 20:36 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 22:07 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 22:30 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-03 23:12 -0700
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 08:45 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 10:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 09:49 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 11:22 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 10:32 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 11:54 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 11:21 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 12:40 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 12:01 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 13:21 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 12:41 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 14:08 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 13:14 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 14:28 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 13:52 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 21:56 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 18:34 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 19:13 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-04 02:05 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 20:31 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 20:51 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 15:06 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 22:00 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 17:55 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 20:49 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Mike <usenet@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-05 03:59 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-09-04 12:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-09-04 13:59 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 21:26 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 16:13 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 22:37 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 16:27 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 15:36 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 17:06 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 11:41 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 14:52 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 16:11 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 11:47 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 11:34 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 10:39 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 11:51 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 09:09 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 12:01 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 15:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 10:02 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 16:18 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 12:02 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 21:16 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 03:47 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 21:56 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-09-02 22:29 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 15:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 10:01 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 16:16 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 10:30 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 16:50 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 14:55 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 16:34 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 15:57 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-03 17:50 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-03 22:40 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 17:27 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 01:07 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-03 19:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 11:57 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 11:26 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 12:42 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 12:05 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 13:27 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 12:44 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 14:11 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 13:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 15:11 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 14:47 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 16:17 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 17:36 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 18:47 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 18:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-04 20:14 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 23:02 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 06:40 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 00:34 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 22:58 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 06:44 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 16:22 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 10:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 17:24 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 11:48 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 12:16 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 13:21 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 12:34 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 14:26 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 13:50 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 15:32 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 20:48 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 15:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 17:45 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 00:14 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 10:15 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 09:30 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 11:07 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 10:17 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 14:14 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 14:15 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 15:38 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 15:28 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 16:41 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 16:53 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-07 02:55 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 21:07 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:17 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:13 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 12:25 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 14:20 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:23 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 20:26 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 14:31 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 20:59 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 15:56 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 22:03 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 17:07 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 19:20 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 01:24 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 19:17 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 18:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 17:55 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 19:37 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 19:01 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 20:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 21:23 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-06 19:33 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 20:45 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ end of life on Earth ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 21:19 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:37 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-07 16:50 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 11:04 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 11:09 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 10:41 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 11:59 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 11:55 -0600
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 13:15 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 23:26 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 17:38 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 01:52 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 20:12 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-09-08 02:26 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 20:45 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 21:52 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 21:11 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 22:22 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 11:32 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 21:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 16:18 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-06 23:55 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 18:32 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 01:40 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 19:49 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 02:09 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 20:40 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 02:57 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 21:17 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 22:56 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:05 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 23:51 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-06 22:59 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 06:28 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 11:54 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 09:07 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-07 16:31 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 10:51 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 01:42 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 20:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 21:12 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 20:28 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 21:55 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 21:18 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 22:27 -0400
H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 21:53 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-07 21:09 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 22:18 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 00:14 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 09:20 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 08:48 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 11:26 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 17:49 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 14:09 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 21:42 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 15:49 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 23:11 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 17:36 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 01:21 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 19:41 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 21:18 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:21 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:05 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 22:09 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:31 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 02:54 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:07 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 12:02 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 08:59 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 16:32 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 10:46 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 23:29 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 17:50 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 19:23 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-10 03:19 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 21:36 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-10 10:37 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-10 08:43 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-10 21:42 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-10 16:30 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-10 16:10 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-10 17:38 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-10 17:07 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-10 18:20 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-10 22:09 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-10 22:03 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-10 22:00 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 21:26 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 21:23 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 20:22 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 11:59 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 13:12 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 12:58 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 14:13 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 14:33 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 14:02 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 15:41 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 15:27 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 17:00 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 16:20 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 17:34 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 19:57 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 19:17 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 21:23 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:23 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:12 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 19:21 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:02 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:14 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 22:25 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:37 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 23:16 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 06:58 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 09:09 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 21:41 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-10 10:00 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-09-10 09:20 -0700
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-10 11:35 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-10 21:55 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-11 08:57 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-11 16:21 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-11 16:16 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-11 17:35 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-11 17:14 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-11 18:44 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-11 17:53 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-11 19:05 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-11 18:14 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-11 19:41 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-11 22:53 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 06:33 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 08:43 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 09:47 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 12:00 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 11:20 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 12:31 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 11:51 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:00 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 12:28 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:36 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 12:47 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:52 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 13:20 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 15:08 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 14:35 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( SUMMATION ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:44 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( SUMMATION ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 15:14 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( SUMMATION ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 13:18 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( SUMMATION ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 15:24 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 13:57 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:01 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 14:12 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:16 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 14:26 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:34 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 15:00 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 14:30 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 12:37 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 13:51 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 15:17 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-12 13:19 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 13:44 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 12:48 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-12 12:41 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-12 12:18 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 23:16 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider ... Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-09-09 10:21 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 08:34 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-09 15:08 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 17:15 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-09 17:18 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 18:31 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ]( calling your bluff! ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 21:47 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 19:54 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ meeting the infinite recursion criteria ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 19:51 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 19:48 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 19:46 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 19:01 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 20:25 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-09-08 19:09 -0600
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 20:17 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 21:32 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:33 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:20 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 22:30 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:50 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 23:10 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 07:05 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 09:16 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 16:05 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 10:25 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 16:41 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 10:51 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 23:29 +0100
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 19:30 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 18:50 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 20:38 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 19:46 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 22:25 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 22:19 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 22:05 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 20:17 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 07:15 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 07:04 -0400
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 09:39 -0500
Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 20:01 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-07 22:33 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 03:55 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-07 22:07 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 07:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 15:58 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 14:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 21:42 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 15:53 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-08 23:52 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 18:10 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 20:11 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 01:21 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 19:37 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 21:30 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:25 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 02:54 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 21:14 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:29 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 22:39 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-08 23:48 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-08 23:08 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 07:09 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 09:18 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 20:53 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 12:02 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 08:47 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 16:18 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 10:31 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-09 23:29 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 21:14 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-09 20:29 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-09 21:02 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-06 20:54 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-09-05 12:34 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-04 22:22 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 16:42 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 00:09 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-04 23:25 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 06:58 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 17:12 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-05 11:40 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-05 12:51 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ Linz H applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-09-05 20:38 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 22:49 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 22:35 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 21:50 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 23:04 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-09-02 22:17 -0500
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ ignorance ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-09-02 23:53 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-30 00:54 +0100
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-29 15:45 -0400
Re: That P(P) of main() halts does not contradict H(P,P)==0 [ exception to the rule ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-28 20:00 -0400
Page 28 of 37 — ← Prev page 1 … 26 27 [28] 29 30 … 37 Next page →
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-08 21:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <QK-dndfUl7bI8aT8nZ2dnUU7-efNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #39187 |
On 9/8/2021 8:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 9/8/2021 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/8/2021 3:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 11:49 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see that its input halts and >>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see that its input never halts >>>>>>>>> TMs don't 'see' anything. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK so in other words a TM always ignores all of its tape elements. >>>>>>> No. And, frankly, that's a childish way to avoid the issue. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not as childish as you not being able to understand what it means when >>>>>> a machine sees a sequence of data indicating an execution trace. >>>>> Whatever one "sees", the other "sees". Two identical TMs (I referred to >>>>> their state transition functions because there are other technical >>>>> matters that are beyond you) when presented with the same data on the >>>>> tape go through exactly the same transitions. >>>> >>>> So in other words you are saying that the simulated TM description Y >>>> that UTM X is simulating can see all of the behavior of its simulator? >>> >>> At this point I don't think I can help any more. I can't think of any >>> way of explaining it more clearly. In fact, I'm not at all sure you >>> really don't understand -- it's such a simple point -- but I have to >>> take your word for it. You are doomed to be wrong and not know it. >> >> The reason that H has different behavior than its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ... > > No one disputes that. You really don't know what's going on. It's > H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> that exhibit exactly the same > behaviour. Specifically, both transition to the rejecting state qn. > >> When you make a mistake I show you how to understand that your mistake >> is obvious. It is obvious that the simulated TM cannot see what its >> UTM is doing. It is not so obvious that this provides the basis for H >> and its simulated input to have different behavior. > > You are totally at sea. I don't see any hope of you every understanding > what's being said. Identical transition functions imply identical > computations given identical inputs. You need to stop waffling and > start paying attention. When you can't comprehend what I am saying instead of trying to incorrectly point out any mistakes when there are none you switch from reasoning to rhetoric. Gullible fools are convinced by this never noticing that you are merely hiding the fact that you have no actual correct rebuttal at all. > >>> If you keep posting about TMs, I think it's worth pointing out why you >>> are wrong for the benefit of anyone else who might come across the post, >>> but I can't see how you can ever "get it". >>> >>>>> The same number of >>>>> transitions, the same tape reads and writes, the same head moves. >>>>> Whatever one "sees" and acts upon the other "sees" and acts upon in >>>>> exactly the same way. They have identical behaviour, step by tiny step. >>>>> If >>>>> H^.qx <H^><H^> |- H^.qn >>>>> then >>>>> H <H^><H^> |- H.qn >>>>> and there is nothing you can do to avoid this mistake other than to stop >>>>> talking about TMs. > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-09 12:02 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <87y2869flm.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #39190 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 9/8/2021 8:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 9/8/2021 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 3:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 11:49 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see that its input halts and >>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see that its input never halts >>>>>>>>>> TMs don't 'see' anything. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OK so in other words a TM always ignores all of its tape elements. >>>>>>>> No. And, frankly, that's a childish way to avoid the issue. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not as childish as you not being able to understand what it means when >>>>>>> a machine sees a sequence of data indicating an execution trace. >>>>>> Whatever one "sees", the other "sees". Two identical TMs (I referred to >>>>>> their state transition functions because there are other technical >>>>>> matters that are beyond you) when presented with the same data on the >>>>>> tape go through exactly the same transitions. >>>>> >>>>> So in other words you are saying that the simulated TM description Y >>>>> that UTM X is simulating can see all of the behavior of its simulator? >>>> >>>> At this point I don't think I can help any more. I can't think of any >>>> way of explaining it more clearly. In fact, I'm not at all sure you >>>> really don't understand -- it's such a simple point -- but I have to >>>> take your word for it. You are doomed to be wrong and not know it. >>> >>> The reason that H has different behavior than its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ... >> >> No one disputes that. You really don't know what's going on. It's >> H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> that exhibit exactly the same >> behaviour. Specifically, both transition to the rejecting state qn. >> >>> When you make a mistake I show you how to understand that your mistake >>> is obvious. It is obvious that the simulated TM cannot see what its >>> UTM is doing. It is not so obvious that this provides the basis for H >>> and its simulated input to have different behavior. >> >> You are totally at sea. I don't see any hope of you [ever] understanding >> what's being said. Identical transition functions imply identical >> computations given identical inputs. You need to stop waffling and >> start paying attention. > > When you can't comprehend what I am saying instead of trying to > incorrectly point out any mistakes when there are none you switch from > reasoning to rhetoric. I switch from reasoning when I can't put the reasoning any clearer. My best effort at explaining why you are wrong is still there for everyone to see. My purpose is just be as clear as possible, and I don't think I can be any clearer now: H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> exhibit exactly the same behaviour since they share (isomorphic) state transition functions, and the tapes contains the same strings. Both transition to the rejecting state qn. > Gullible fools are convinced by this never noticing that you are > merely hiding the fact that you have no actual correct rebuttal at > all. It's there for all to see. What is so striking, though, is the dramatic the change in your plan. You spent many, many months arguing (unsuccessfully) that for your x86 code H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == false was the "correct" answer despite the fact that a trace showed H_Hat(H_Hat) halting. A lots of words were thrown about to justify the wrong answer from H. You had even "adjusted" the definition of halting. False was correct because of what H_Hat(H_hat) would do were it not actually "halted". So why are you not happy to agree that, in the TM model you appear to be talking about here, H rejects <H^><H^>? H rejecting <H^><H^> was, in the x86 world, the correct answer for a very long time. When did you change your mind, or did you only change your mind for TMs? Is false now the wrong return from H(H_Hat, H_Hat)? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-09 08:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <0didnRjuHtfcjqf8nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #39218 |
On 9/9/2021 6:02 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>
>> On 9/8/2021 8:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 9/8/2021 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 3:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 11:49 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see that its input halts and
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see that its input never halts
>>>>>>>>>>> TMs don't 'see' anything.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OK so in other words a TM always ignores all of its tape elements.
>>>>>>>>> No. And, frankly, that's a childish way to avoid the issue.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not as childish as you not being able to understand what it means when
>>>>>>>> a machine sees a sequence of data indicating an execution trace.
>>>>>>> Whatever one "sees", the other "sees". Two identical TMs (I referred to
>>>>>>> their state transition functions because there are other technical
>>>>>>> matters that are beyond you) when presented with the same data on the
>>>>>>> tape go through exactly the same transitions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So in other words you are saying that the simulated TM description Y
>>>>>> that UTM X is simulating can see all of the behavior of its simulator?
>>>>>
>>>>> At this point I don't think I can help any more. I can't think of any
>>>>> way of explaining it more clearly. In fact, I'm not at all sure you
>>>>> really don't understand -- it's such a simple point -- but I have to
>>>>> take your word for it. You are doomed to be wrong and not know it.
>>>>
>>>> The reason that H has different behavior than its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ...
>>>
>>> No one disputes that. You really don't know what's going on. It's
>>> H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> that exhibit exactly the same
>>> behaviour. Specifically, both transition to the rejecting state qn.
>>>
>>>> When you make a mistake I show you how to understand that your mistake
>>>> is obvious. It is obvious that the simulated TM cannot see what its
>>>> UTM is doing. It is not so obvious that this provides the basis for H
>>>> and its simulated input to have different behavior.
>>>
>>> You are totally at sea. I don't see any hope of you [ever] understanding
>>> what's being said. Identical transition functions imply identical
>>> computations given identical inputs. You need to stop waffling and
>>> start paying attention.
>>
>> When you can't comprehend what I am saying instead of trying to
>> incorrectly point out any mistakes when there are none you switch from
>> reasoning to rhetoric.
>
> I switch from reasoning when I can't put the reasoning any clearer. My
> best effort at explaining why you are wrong is still there for everyone
> to see. My purpose is just be as clear as possible, and I don't think I
> can be any clearer now:
>
> H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> exhibit exactly the same behaviour
> since they share (isomorphic) state transition functions, and the tapes
> contains the same strings. Both transition to the rejecting state qn.
>
Although that would seem to be intuitively correct empirical proof shows
otherwise. This is easiest to understand in the C/x86 model.
Here it is in the Linz model:
H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ sees
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
∴ H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy
We can see that it actually does work that way by
the H1/P proxy for H/Ĥ
void P(u32 x)
{
if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H1((u32)P, (u32)P));
}
H(P,P) reports 0
H1(P,P) reports 1
>> Gullible fools are convinced by this never noticing that you are
>> merely hiding the fact that you have no actual correct rebuttal at
>> all.
>
> It's there for all to see.
>
> What is so striking, though, is the dramatic the change in your plan.
> You spent many, many months arguing (unsuccessfully) that for your x86
> code H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == false was the "correct" answer despite the fact
> that a trace showed H_Hat(H_Hat) halting. A lots of words were thrown
> about to justify the wrong answer from H. You had even "adjusted" the
> definition of halting. False was correct because of what H_Hat(H_hat)
> would do were it not actually "halted".
>
H(P,P) correctly reports that its input never halts.
H1(P,P) correctly reports that its input halts.
The difference between these two creates a decidability decider that
refutes Rice.
> So why are you not happy to agree that, in the TM model you appear to be
> talking about here, H rejects <H^><H^>? H rejecting <H^><H^> was, in
> the x86 world, the correct answer for a very long time. When did you
> change your mind, or did you only change your mind for TMs? Is false
> now the wrong return from H(H_Hat, H_Hat)?
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-09 16:32 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <87h7etahnc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #39223 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 9/9/2021 6:02 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 9/8/2021 8:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 9/8/2021 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 3:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 11:49 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see that its input halts and >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see that its input never halts >>>>>>>>>>>> TMs don't 'see' anything. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> OK so in other words a TM always ignores all of its tape elements. >>>>>>>>>> No. And, frankly, that's a childish way to avoid the issue. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not as childish as you not being able to understand what it means when >>>>>>>>> a machine sees a sequence of data indicating an execution trace. >>>>>>>> Whatever one "sees", the other "sees". Two identical TMs (I referred to >>>>>>>> their state transition functions because there are other technical >>>>>>>> matters that are beyond you) when presented with the same data on the >>>>>>>> tape go through exactly the same transitions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So in other words you are saying that the simulated TM description Y >>>>>>> that UTM X is simulating can see all of the behavior of its simulator? >>>>>> >>>>>> At this point I don't think I can help any more. I can't think of any >>>>>> way of explaining it more clearly. In fact, I'm not at all sure you >>>>>> really don't understand -- it's such a simple point -- but I have to >>>>>> take your word for it. You are doomed to be wrong and not know it. >>>>> >>>>> The reason that H has different behavior than its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ... >>>> >>>> No one disputes that. You really don't know what's going on. It's >>>> H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> that exhibit exactly the same >>>> behaviour. Specifically, both transition to the rejecting state qn. >>>> >>>>> When you make a mistake I show you how to understand that your mistake >>>>> is obvious. It is obvious that the simulated TM cannot see what its >>>>> UTM is doing. It is not so obvious that this provides the basis for H >>>>> and its simulated input to have different behavior. >>>> >>>> You are totally at sea. I don't see any hope of you [ever] understanding >>>> what's being said. Identical transition functions imply identical >>>> computations given identical inputs. You need to stop waffling and >>>> start paying attention. >>> >>> When you can't comprehend what I am saying instead of trying to >>> incorrectly point out any mistakes when there are none you switch from >>> reasoning to rhetoric. >> I switch from reasoning when I can't put the reasoning any clearer. My >> best effort at explaining why you are wrong is still there for everyone >> to see. My purpose is just be as clear as possible, and I don't think I >> can be any clearer now: >> H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> exhibit exactly the same behaviour >> since they share (isomorphic) state transition functions, and the tapes >> contains the same strings. Both transition to the rejecting state qn. > > Although that would seem to be intuitively correct empirical proof > shows otherwise. "He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." (Groucho Marx) It seems intuitively correct and it is correct. > This is easiest to understand in the C/x86 model. If your code does not confirm that both H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> transition to qn, then it's wrong. > Here it is in the Linz model: > > H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ sees Regardless of what it sees H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn because H has the same state transition function and input as Ĥ.qx and we know that > Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn Form Ĥ.qx onward, Ĥ sees exactly the same things that H sees because they are identical machines with identical inputs. >> What is so striking, though, is the dramatic the change in your plan. >> You spent many, many months arguing (unsuccessfully) that for your x86 >> code H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == false was the "correct" answer despite the fact >> that a trace showed H_Hat(H_Hat) halting. A lots of words were thrown >> about to justify the wrong answer from H. You had even "adjusted" the >> definition of halting. False was correct because of what H_Hat(H_hat) >> would do were it not actually "halted". > > H(P,P) correctly reports that its input never halts. So H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == false is still considered by you to be "correct". Why then, do you object to the same being true for the TM you call H? If the code H is "correct" to report (H_Hat, H_Hat) as non-halting, surely the TM H should do the same for <H^><H^>? I think you are now just floundering, about saying whatever you need to at the time, simply to keep the thread going. I've snipped the even more preposterous claim that you hope will derail the discussion of the most obvious error: identical TMs exhibit identical behaviour when given identical tape contents. You can't get round it. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-09 10:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <atCdnY_hi6mjsaf8nZ2dnUU7-afNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #39231 |
On 9/9/2021 10:32 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 9/9/2021 6:02 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 9/8/2021 8:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/8/2021 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 3:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 11:49 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see that its input halts and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see that its input never halts >>>>>>>>>>>>> TMs don't 'see' anything. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> OK so in other words a TM always ignores all of its tape elements. >>>>>>>>>>> No. And, frankly, that's a childish way to avoid the issue. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not as childish as you not being able to understand what it means when >>>>>>>>>> a machine sees a sequence of data indicating an execution trace. >>>>>>>>> Whatever one "sees", the other "sees". Two identical TMs (I referred to >>>>>>>>> their state transition functions because there are other technical >>>>>>>>> matters that are beyond you) when presented with the same data on the >>>>>>>>> tape go through exactly the same transitions. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So in other words you are saying that the simulated TM description Y >>>>>>>> that UTM X is simulating can see all of the behavior of its simulator? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> At this point I don't think I can help any more. I can't think of any >>>>>>> way of explaining it more clearly. In fact, I'm not at all sure you >>>>>>> really don't understand -- it's such a simple point -- but I have to >>>>>>> take your word for it. You are doomed to be wrong and not know it. >>>>>> >>>>>> The reason that H has different behavior than its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ... >>>>> >>>>> No one disputes that. You really don't know what's going on. It's >>>>> H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> that exhibit exactly the same >>>>> behaviour. Specifically, both transition to the rejecting state qn. >>>>> >>>>>> When you make a mistake I show you how to understand that your mistake >>>>>> is obvious. It is obvious that the simulated TM cannot see what its >>>>>> UTM is doing. It is not so obvious that this provides the basis for H >>>>>> and its simulated input to have different behavior. >>>>> >>>>> You are totally at sea. I don't see any hope of you [ever] understanding >>>>> what's being said. Identical transition functions imply identical >>>>> computations given identical inputs. You need to stop waffling and >>>>> start paying attention. >>>> >>>> When you can't comprehend what I am saying instead of trying to >>>> incorrectly point out any mistakes when there are none you switch from >>>> reasoning to rhetoric. >>> I switch from reasoning when I can't put the reasoning any clearer. My >>> best effort at explaining why you are wrong is still there for everyone >>> to see. My purpose is just be as clear as possible, and I don't think I >>> can be any clearer now: >>> H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> exhibit exactly the same behaviour >>> since they share (isomorphic) state transition functions, and the tapes >>> contains the same strings. Both transition to the rejecting state qn. >> >> Although that would seem to be intuitively correct empirical proof >> shows otherwise. > > "He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that > fool you. He really is an idiot." (Groucho Marx) > > It seems intuitively correct and it is correct. > >> This is easiest to understand in the C/x86 model. > > If your code does not confirm that both H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> > transition to qn, then it's wrong. > >> Here it is in the Linz model: >> >> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ sees > > Regardless of what it sees > > H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn > > because H has the same state transition function and input as Ĥ.qx and > we know that > >> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > > Form Ĥ.qx onward, Ĥ sees exactly the same things that H sees because > they are identical machines with identical inputs. > >>> What is so striking, though, is the dramatic the change in your plan. >>> You spent many, many months arguing (unsuccessfully) that for your x86 >>> code H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == false was the "correct" answer despite the fact >>> that a trace showed H_Hat(H_Hat) halting. A lots of words were thrown >>> about to justify the wrong answer from H. You had even "adjusted" the >>> definition of halting. False was correct because of what H_Hat(H_hat) >>> would do were it not actually "halted". >> >> H(P,P) correctly reports that its input never halts. > > So H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == false is still considered by you to be "correct". > Why then, do you object to the same being true for the TM you call H? > If the code H is "correct" to report (H_Hat, H_Hat) as non-halting, > surely the TM H should do the same for <H^><H^>? > > I think you are now just floundering, about saying whatever you need to > at the time, simply to keep the thread going. > > I've snipped the even more preposterous claim that you hope will derail > the discussion of the most obvious error: identical TMs exhibit > identical behaviour when given identical tape contents. You can't get > round it. > Perhaps your lack of understanding of the C/x86 H(P,P) computation proves that our dialogue can never be fruitful thus no sense in continuing. (a) It is the case that H(P,P)==0 is correct Not having any understanding of the x86 language makes it impossible to understand that the simulation of the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly ever halt unless H aborts this simulation. Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:c36 [00000c36][002117ca][002117ce] 55 push ebp [00000c37][002117ca][002117ce] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000c39][002117ca][002117ce] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000c3c][002117c6][00000c36] 50 push eax // push P [00000c3d][002117c6][00000c36] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000c40][002117c2][00000c36] 51 push ecx // push P [00000c41][002117be][00000c46] e820fdffff call 00000966 // call H(P,P) [00000c36][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 55 push ebp [00000c37][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000c39][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000c3c][0025c1ee][00000c36] 50 push eax // push P [00000c3d][0025c1ee][00000c36] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000c40][0025c1ea][00000c36] 51 push ecx // push P [00000c41][0025c1e6][00000c46] e820fdffff call 00000966 // call H(P,P) Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped (b) It is the case that H1((P,P)==1 is correct (c) It is the case the this is inconsistent. (d) It is the case that this inconsistency defines a decidability decider that correctly rejects P on the basis that P has the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) error. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-09 23:29 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <87wnnp8jsa.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #39233 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 9/9/2021 10:32 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 9/9/2021 6:02 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 9/8/2021 8:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 3:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 11:49 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see that its input halts and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see that its input never halts >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMs don't 'see' anything. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> OK so in other words a TM always ignores all of its tape elements. >>>>>>>>>>>> No. And, frankly, that's a childish way to avoid the issue. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Not as childish as you not being able to understand what it means when >>>>>>>>>>> a machine sees a sequence of data indicating an execution trace. >>>>>>>>>> Whatever one "sees", the other "sees". Two identical TMs (I referred to >>>>>>>>>> their state transition functions because there are other technical >>>>>>>>>> matters that are beyond you) when presented with the same data on the >>>>>>>>>> tape go through exactly the same transitions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So in other words you are saying that the simulated TM description Y >>>>>>>>> that UTM X is simulating can see all of the behavior of its simulator? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> At this point I don't think I can help any more. I can't think of any >>>>>>>> way of explaining it more clearly. In fact, I'm not at all sure you >>>>>>>> really don't understand -- it's such a simple point -- but I have to >>>>>>>> take your word for it. You are doomed to be wrong and not know it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The reason that H has different behavior than its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ... >>>>>> >>>>>> No one disputes that. You really don't know what's going on. It's >>>>>> H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> that exhibit exactly the same >>>>>> behaviour. Specifically, both transition to the rejecting state qn. >>>>>> >>>>>>> When you make a mistake I show you how to understand that your mistake >>>>>>> is obvious. It is obvious that the simulated TM cannot see what its >>>>>>> UTM is doing. It is not so obvious that this provides the basis for H >>>>>>> and its simulated input to have different behavior. >>>>>> >>>>>> You are totally at sea. I don't see any hope of you [ever] understanding >>>>>> what's being said. Identical transition functions imply identical >>>>>> computations given identical inputs. You need to stop waffling and >>>>>> start paying attention. >>>>> >>>>> When you can't comprehend what I am saying instead of trying to >>>>> incorrectly point out any mistakes when there are none you switch from >>>>> reasoning to rhetoric. >>>> I switch from reasoning when I can't put the reasoning any clearer. My >>>> best effort at explaining why you are wrong is still there for everyone >>>> to see. My purpose is just be as clear as possible, and I don't think I >>>> can be any clearer now: >>>> H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> exhibit exactly the same behaviour >>>> since they share (isomorphic) state transition functions, and the tapes >>>> contains the same strings. Both transition to the rejecting state qn. >>> >>> Although that would seem to be intuitively correct empirical proof >>> shows otherwise. >> "He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that >> fool you. He really is an idiot." (Groucho Marx) >> It seems intuitively correct and it is correct. >> >>> This is easiest to understand in the C/x86 model. >> If your code does not confirm that both H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> >> transition to qn, then it's wrong. >> >>> Here it is in the Linz model: >>> >>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ sees >> Regardless of what it sees >> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn >> because H has the same state transition function and input as Ĥ.qx and >> we know that >> >>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> Form Ĥ.qx onward, Ĥ sees exactly the same things that H sees because >> they are identical machines with identical inputs. >> >>>> What is so striking, though, is the dramatic the change in your plan. >>>> You spent many, many months arguing (unsuccessfully) that for your x86 >>>> code H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == false was the "correct" answer despite the fact >>>> that a trace showed H_Hat(H_Hat) halting. A lots of words were thrown >>>> about to justify the wrong answer from H. You had even "adjusted" the >>>> definition of halting. False was correct because of what H_Hat(H_hat) >>>> would do were it not actually "halted". >>> >>> H(P,P) correctly reports that its input never halts. >> So H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == false is still considered by you to be "correct". >> Why then, do you object to the same being true for the TM you call H? >> If the code H is "correct" to report (H_Hat, H_Hat) as non-halting, >> surely the TM H should do the same for <H^><H^>? >> I think you are now just floundering, about saying whatever you need to >> at the time, simply to keep the thread going. >> I've snipped the even more preposterous claim that you hope will derail >> the discussion of the most obvious error: identical TMs exhibit >> identical behaviour when given identical tape contents. You can't get >> round it. > > Perhaps your lack of understanding of the C/x86 H(P,P) computation > proves that our dialogue can never be fruitful thus no sense in > continuing. If you are not going to address any of the points raised, I can't see why you reply at all. To other readers it will be clear that you are just avoiding the hard truths being pointed out to you. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-09 17:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <mv2dnRHW-Mw9Eqf8nZ2dnUU7-SmdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #39238 |
On 9/9/2021 5:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 9/9/2021 10:32 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 9/9/2021 6:02 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/8/2021 8:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 3:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 11:49 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see that its input halts and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see that its input never halts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMs don't 'see' anything. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK so in other words a TM always ignores all of its tape elements. >>>>>>>>>>>>> No. And, frankly, that's a childish way to avoid the issue. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not as childish as you not being able to understand what it means when >>>>>>>>>>>> a machine sees a sequence of data indicating an execution trace. >>>>>>>>>>> Whatever one "sees", the other "sees". Two identical TMs (I referred to >>>>>>>>>>> their state transition functions because there are other technical >>>>>>>>>>> matters that are beyond you) when presented with the same data on the >>>>>>>>>>> tape go through exactly the same transitions. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So in other words you are saying that the simulated TM description Y >>>>>>>>>> that UTM X is simulating can see all of the behavior of its simulator? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> At this point I don't think I can help any more. I can't think of any >>>>>>>>> way of explaining it more clearly. In fact, I'm not at all sure you >>>>>>>>> really don't understand -- it's such a simple point -- but I have to >>>>>>>>> take your word for it. You are doomed to be wrong and not know it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The reason that H has different behavior than its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No one disputes that. You really don't know what's going on. It's >>>>>>> H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> that exhibit exactly the same >>>>>>> behaviour. Specifically, both transition to the rejecting state qn. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When you make a mistake I show you how to understand that your mistake >>>>>>>> is obvious. It is obvious that the simulated TM cannot see what its >>>>>>>> UTM is doing. It is not so obvious that this provides the basis for H >>>>>>>> and its simulated input to have different behavior. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are totally at sea. I don't see any hope of you [ever] understanding >>>>>>> what's being said. Identical transition functions imply identical >>>>>>> computations given identical inputs. You need to stop waffling and >>>>>>> start paying attention. >>>>>> >>>>>> When you can't comprehend what I am saying instead of trying to >>>>>> incorrectly point out any mistakes when there are none you switch from >>>>>> reasoning to rhetoric. >>>>> I switch from reasoning when I can't put the reasoning any clearer. My >>>>> best effort at explaining why you are wrong is still there for everyone >>>>> to see. My purpose is just be as clear as possible, and I don't think I >>>>> can be any clearer now: >>>>> H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> exhibit exactly the same behaviour >>>>> since they share (isomorphic) state transition functions, and the tapes >>>>> contains the same strings. Both transition to the rejecting state qn. >>>> >>>> Although that would seem to be intuitively correct empirical proof >>>> shows otherwise. >>> "He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that >>> fool you. He really is an idiot." (Groucho Marx) >>> It seems intuitively correct and it is correct. >>> >>>> This is easiest to understand in the C/x86 model. >>> If your code does not confirm that both H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> >>> transition to qn, then it's wrong. >>> >>>> Here it is in the Linz model: >>>> >>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ sees >>> Regardless of what it sees >>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn >>> because H has the same state transition function and input as Ĥ.qx and >>> we know that >>> >>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> Form Ĥ.qx onward, Ĥ sees exactly the same things that H sees because >>> they are identical machines with identical inputs. >>> >>>>> What is so striking, though, is the dramatic the change in your plan. >>>>> You spent many, many months arguing (unsuccessfully) that for your x86 >>>>> code H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == false was the "correct" answer despite the fact >>>>> that a trace showed H_Hat(H_Hat) halting. A lots of words were thrown >>>>> about to justify the wrong answer from H. You had even "adjusted" the >>>>> definition of halting. False was correct because of what H_Hat(H_hat) >>>>> would do were it not actually "halted". >>>> >>>> H(P,P) correctly reports that its input never halts. >>> So H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == false is still considered by you to be "correct". >>> Why then, do you object to the same being true for the TM you call H? >>> If the code H is "correct" to report (H_Hat, H_Hat) as non-halting, >>> surely the TM H should do the same for <H^><H^>? >>> I think you are now just floundering, about saying whatever you need to >>> at the time, simply to keep the thread going. >>> I've snipped the even more preposterous claim that you hope will derail >>> the discussion of the most obvious error: identical TMs exhibit >>> identical behaviour when given identical tape contents. You can't get >>> round it. >> >> Perhaps your lack of understanding of the C/x86 H(P,P) computation >> proves that our dialogue can never be fruitful thus no sense in >> continuing. > > If you are not going to address any of the points raised, I can't see > why you reply at all. To other readers it will be clear that you are > just avoiding the hard truths being pointed out to you. > It seems to me that all the points that you raise are merely your own misconceptions. It is like you are asking me: Why do I believe that cats are not dogs? everyone knows that cats are dogs. -- 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 | 2021-09-09 19:23 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <vHw_I.94321$lC6.86621@fx41.iad> |
| In reply to | #39240 |
On 9/9/21 6:50 PM, olcott wrote: > On 9/9/2021 5:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 9/9/2021 10:32 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 9/9/2021 6:02 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 8:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 7:21 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 5:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 3:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/8/2021 11:49 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see that its input halts and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ can see that its input never halts >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TMs don't 'see' anything. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK so in other words a TM always ignores all of its tape >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. And, frankly, that's a childish way to avoid the issue. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Not as childish as you not being able to understand what it >>>>>>>>>>>>> means when >>>>>>>>>>>>> a machine sees a sequence of data indicating an execution >>>>>>>>>>>>> trace. >>>>>>>>>>>> Whatever one "sees", the other "sees". Two identical TMs (I >>>>>>>>>>>> referred to >>>>>>>>>>>> their state transition functions because there are other >>>>>>>>>>>> technical >>>>>>>>>>>> matters that are beyond you) when presented with the same >>>>>>>>>>>> data on the >>>>>>>>>>>> tape go through exactly the same transitions. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So in other words you are saying that the simulated TM >>>>>>>>>>> description Y >>>>>>>>>>> that UTM X is simulating can see all of the behavior of its >>>>>>>>>>> simulator? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> At this point I don't think I can help any more. I can't >>>>>>>>>> think of any >>>>>>>>>> way of explaining it more clearly. In fact, I'm not at all >>>>>>>>>> sure you >>>>>>>>>> really don't understand -- it's such a simple point -- but I >>>>>>>>>> have to >>>>>>>>>> take your word for it. You are doomed to be wrong and not >>>>>>>>>> know it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The reason that H has different behavior than its input ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No one disputes that. You really don't know what's going on. It's >>>>>>>> H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> that exhibit exactly the same >>>>>>>> behaviour. Specifically, both transition to the rejecting state >>>>>>>> qn. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When you make a mistake I show you how to understand that your >>>>>>>>> mistake >>>>>>>>> is obvious. It is obvious that the simulated TM cannot see what >>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>> UTM is doing. It is not so obvious that this provides the basis >>>>>>>>> for H >>>>>>>>> and its simulated input to have different behavior. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are totally at sea. I don't see any hope of you [ever] >>>>>>>> understanding >>>>>>>> what's being said. Identical transition functions imply identical >>>>>>>> computations given identical inputs. You need to stop waffling and >>>>>>>> start paying attention. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When you can't comprehend what I am saying instead of trying to >>>>>>> incorrectly point out any mistakes when there are none you switch >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> reasoning to rhetoric. >>>>>> I switch from reasoning when I can't put the reasoning any >>>>>> clearer. My >>>>>> best effort at explaining why you are wrong is still there for >>>>>> everyone >>>>>> to see. My purpose is just be as clear as possible, and I don't >>>>>> think I >>>>>> can be any clearer now: >>>>>> H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx <H^><H^> exhibit exactly the same behaviour >>>>>> since they share (isomorphic) state transition functions, and the >>>>>> tapes >>>>>> contains the same strings. Both transition to the rejecting state >>>>>> qn. >>>>> >>>>> Although that would seem to be intuitively correct empirical proof >>>>> shows otherwise. >>>> "He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that >>>> fool you. He really is an idiot." (Groucho Marx) >>>> It seems intuitively correct and it is correct. >>>> >>>>> This is easiest to understand in the C/x86 model. >>>> If your code does not confirm that both H.q0 <H^><H^> and H^.qx >>>> <H^><H^> >>>> transition to qn, then it's wrong. >>>> >>>>> Here it is in the Linz model: >>>>> >>>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ sees >>>> Regardless of what it sees >>>> H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* H.qn >>>> because H has the same state transition function and input as Ĥ.qx and >>>> we know that >>>> >>>>> Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>>> Form Ĥ.qx onward, Ĥ sees exactly the same things that H sees because >>>> they are identical machines with identical inputs. >>>> >>>>>> What is so striking, though, is the dramatic the change in your plan. >>>>>> You spent many, many months arguing (unsuccessfully) that for your >>>>>> x86 >>>>>> code H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == false was the "correct" answer despite the >>>>>> fact >>>>>> that a trace showed H_Hat(H_Hat) halting. A lots of words were >>>>>> thrown >>>>>> about to justify the wrong answer from H. You had even "adjusted" >>>>>> the >>>>>> definition of halting. False was correct because of what >>>>>> H_Hat(H_hat) >>>>>> would do were it not actually "halted". >>>>> >>>>> H(P,P) correctly reports that its input never halts. >>>> So H(H_Hat, H_Hat) == false is still considered by you to be "correct". >>>> Why then, do you object to the same being true for the TM you call H? >>>> If the code H is "correct" to report (H_Hat, H_Hat) as non-halting, >>>> surely the TM H should do the same for <H^><H^>? >>>> I think you are now just floundering, about saying whatever you need to >>>> at the time, simply to keep the thread going. >>>> I've snipped the even more preposterous claim that you hope will derail >>>> the discussion of the most obvious error: identical TMs exhibit >>>> identical behaviour when given identical tape contents. You can't get >>>> round it. >>> >>> Perhaps your lack of understanding of the C/x86 H(P,P) computation >>> proves that our dialogue can never be fruitful thus no sense in >>> continuing. >> >> If you are not going to address any of the points raised, I can't see >> why you reply at all. To other readers it will be clear that you are >> just avoiding the hard truths being pointed out to you. >> > > It seems to me that all the points that you raise are merely your own > misconceptions. It is like you are asking me: Why do I believe that cats > are not dogs? everyone knows that cats are dogs. > I think one big point is that from very thing I have seen, your H never actually simulates another copy of H, but just presumes that it is not going to abort its simulation and then the top level H steps down and simulates that inner machine. The Real Turing Machine H wouldn't (and couldn't) do that, so that is a BIG difference in your model. H does an UNSOUND transform on its tracing, and gets wrong answers because of that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-10 03:19 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <87o891894o.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #39240 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 9/9/2021 5:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> Perhaps your lack of understanding of the C/x86 H(P,P) computation >>> proves that our dialogue can never be fruitful thus no sense in >>> continuing. >> >> If you are not going to address any of the points raised, I can't see >> why you reply at all. To other readers it will be clear that you are >> just avoiding the hard truths being pointed out to you. > > It seems to me that all the points that you raise are merely your own > misconceptions. It is like you are asking me: Why do I believe that > cats are not dogs? everyone knows that cats are dogs. Curiously, though, you don't reply as if I am presenting misconceptions. Rather than explain the "misconception" that leads me to think that identical TMs will make the same sequence of transitions when presented with the same data, you cast aspersions and throw some dodgy x86 execution traces around. That looks more like avoidance. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-09 21:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <g8KdnYast-VUWaf8nZ2dnUU7-WnNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #39258 |
On 9/9/2021 9:19 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 9/9/2021 5:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >>>> Perhaps your lack of understanding of the C/x86 H(P,P) computation >>>> proves that our dialogue can never be fruitful thus no sense in >>>> continuing. >>> >>> If you are not going to address any of the points raised, I can't see >>> why you reply at all. To other readers it will be clear that you are >>> just avoiding the hard truths being pointed out to you. >> >> It seems to me that all the points that you raise are merely your own >> misconceptions. It is like you are asking me: Why do I believe that >> cats are not dogs? everyone knows that cats are dogs. > > Curiously, though, you don't reply as if I am presenting misconceptions. > Rather than explain the "misconception" that leads me to think that > identical TMs will make the same sequence of transitions when presented > with the same data, you cast aspersions and throw some dodgy x86 > execution traces around. That looks more like avoidance. > > Full disclosure. Full disclosure. Full disclosure. Full disclosure. When I make the halt deciders an actual perfectly pure function of their inputs such that they have no access at all to data that is not on the stack it seems that things change. The good news is that I have figured out to define the halt deciders as a pure function of their inputs without hobbling them. I have to do more testing with this updated algorithm. It seems that H1/H may work differently now. I thought that my prior system was a sufficiently pure function of its inputs. It seems that when I make it a 100% pure function of its inputs that its behavior changes. That the behavior changes seems to indicate that it was not sufficiently a pure function of its inputs previously. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-10 10:37 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <87ilz893gj.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #39260 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 9/9/2021 9:19 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 9/9/2021 5:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>>>> Perhaps your lack of understanding of the C/x86 H(P,P) computation >>>>> proves that our dialogue can never be fruitful thus no sense in >>>>> continuing. >>>> >>>> If you are not going to address any of the points raised, I can't see >>>> why you reply at all. To other readers it will be clear that you are >>>> just avoiding the hard truths being pointed out to you. >>> >>> It seems to me that all the points that you raise are merely your own >>> misconceptions. It is like you are asking me: Why do I believe that >>> cats are not dogs? everyone knows that cats are dogs. >> >> Curiously, though, you don't reply as if I am presenting misconceptions. >> Rather than explain the "misconception" that leads me to think that >> identical TMs will make the same sequence of transitions when presented >> with the same data, you cast aspersions and throw some dodgy x86 >> execution traces around. That looks more like avoidance. > > Full disclosure. Of what? You are still hiding the code and refusing to address the errors in what you say about Turing machines. And you've never come clean about what you claimed to have in Dec 2018. > Full disclosure. > Full disclosure. > Full disclosure. > > When I make the halt deciders an actual perfectly pure function of > their inputs such that they have no access at all to data that is not > on the stack it seems that things change. It does not correct a single error in what you have said about Turing machines. > The good news is that I have figured out to define the halt deciders > as a pure function of their inputs without hobbling them. Again, you mean? Remember you had H "fully encoded" almost three years ago. Whilst you explained the fact that you said you had an actual Turing machine as "poetic licence", you have never explained what "fully encoded" meant back then. > I have to do more testing with this updated algorithm. > It seems that H1/H may work differently now. Will you still declare H(M, I) == false to be the correct answer in some cases where M(I) halts? That's by far the easiest way to be correct. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-10 08:43 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <hYednaoBmu9p_ab8nZ2dnUU7-N3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #39261 |
On 9/10/2021 4:37 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 9/9/2021 9:19 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 9/9/2021 5:29 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>>>> Perhaps your lack of understanding of the C/x86 H(P,P) computation >>>>>> proves that our dialogue can never be fruitful thus no sense in >>>>>> continuing. >>>>> >>>>> If you are not going to address any of the points raised, I can't see >>>>> why you reply at all. To other readers it will be clear that you are >>>>> just avoiding the hard truths being pointed out to you. >>>> >>>> It seems to me that all the points that you raise are merely your own >>>> misconceptions. It is like you are asking me: Why do I believe that >>>> cats are not dogs? everyone knows that cats are dogs. >>> >>> Curiously, though, you don't reply as if I am presenting misconceptions. >>> Rather than explain the "misconception" that leads me to think that >>> identical TMs will make the same sequence of transitions when presented >>> with the same data, you cast aspersions and throw some dodgy x86 >>> execution traces around. That looks more like avoidance. >> >> Full disclosure. > > Of what? You are still hiding the code and refusing to address the > errors in what you say about Turing machines. And you've never come > clean about what you claimed to have in Dec 2018. > >> Full disclosure. >> Full disclosure. >> Full disclosure. >> >> When I make the halt deciders an actual perfectly pure function of >> their inputs such that they have no access at all to data that is not >> on the stack it seems that things change. > > It does not correct a single error in what you have said about Turing > machines. > >> The good news is that I have figured out to define the halt deciders >> as a pure function of their inputs without hobbling them. > > Again, you mean? Remember you had H "fully encoded" almost three years > ago. Whilst you explained the fact that you said you had an actual > Turing machine as "poetic licence", you have never explained what "fully > encoded" meant back then. > >> I have to do more testing with this updated algorithm. >> It seems that H1/H may work differently now. > > Will you still declare H(M, I) == false to be the correct answer in some > cases where M(I) halts? That's by far the easiest way to be correct. > H1/H no longer seems to derive the result that I was reporting. This means that when H simulates ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ its result is also different. It looks like you may have been right and I may have been wrong on this. I wasn't sure that I could make H a totally pure function of its inputs without hobbling it. Now I am sure that I can do this. I thought that it was pure enough. That its behavior changed when I made it totally pure would seem to prove that it was not pure enough. -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-10 21:42 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <87czpg88n9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #39266 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > On 9/10/2021 4:37 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: ... >>> Full disclosure. >> Of what? ... > H1/H no longer seems... You started a post saying "full disclosure", so a I asked about some of the things that you have never disclosed. Your reply answered none of these questions. Why did you reply to my post at all? By the way, saying you won't or can't answer is fine. That's a valid response to someone asking about what you've been saying. So is not replying at all. What makes you so obviously a crank is your need for others to pay attention to you whilst you ignore what they have to say. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-10 16:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <DIWdnXQkuvX9U6b8nZ2dnUU7-VXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #39272 |
On 9/10/2021 3:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > >> On 9/10/2021 4:37 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: > ... >>>> Full disclosure. >>> Of what? ... > >> H1/H no longer seems... > > You started a post saying "full disclosure", so a I asked about some of > the things that you have never disclosed. Your reply answered none of > these questions. Why did you reply to my post at all? > > By the way, saying you won't or can't answer is fine. That's a valid > response to someone asking about what you've been saying. So is not > replying at all. What makes you so obviously a crank is your need for > others to pay attention to you whilst you ignore what they have to say. > As far as what I have said about H needing to analyze its own behavior when it is assessing the halt status of P it is like I smash a Boston cream pie in their face and they say Glub, Glub Glub there is no pie: If X cannot possibly have any effect on Y while Z then the behavior of X can be ignored while Z. X=H Y=P Z=halt status decision by H about P is being made -- 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 | 2021-09-10 16:10 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <shgl5l$7g8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39273 |
On 2021-09-10 15:30, olcott wrote: > On 9/10/2021 3:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 9/10/2021 4:37 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> ... >>>>> Full disclosure. >>>> Of what? ... >> >>> H1/H no longer seems... >> >> You started a post saying "full disclosure", so a I asked about some of >> the things that you have never disclosed. Your reply answered none of >> these questions. Why did you reply to my post at all? >> >> By the way, saying you won't or can't answer is fine. That's a valid >> response to someone asking about what you've been saying. So is not >> replying at all. What makes you so obviously a crank is your need for >> others to pay attention to you whilst you ignore what they have to say. >> > > As far as what I have said about H needing to analyze its own behavior > when it is assessing the halt status of P it is like I smash a Boston > cream pie in their face and they say Glub, Glub Glub there is no pie: You can say something as many times as you want. Unless you actually provide a compelling justification people aren't going to accept it. And thus far you definitely have *not* provided any compelling justification. But, if your claim that the code of H has absolutely no affect on the behaviour of P(P) were true, then presumably your code would work exactly the same way if it *didn't* ignore the code to H. Since no one has thus far accepted your claim that the code of H can be ignored, wouldn't it be simpler to simply stop ignoring it? (after all, if it has not affect it shouldn't matter whether you ignore it or not). Then you wouldn't have to convince people of this dubious claim. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-10 17:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <COidnQPiIInxQ6b8nZ2dnUU78d3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #39274 |
On 9/10/2021 5:10 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-09-10 15:30, olcott wrote: >> On 9/10/2021 3:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> >>>> On 9/10/2021 4:37 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>> ... >>>>>> Full disclosure. >>>>> Of what? ... >>> >>>> H1/H no longer seems... >>> >>> You started a post saying "full disclosure", so a I asked about some of >>> the things that you have never disclosed. Your reply answered none of >>> these questions. Why did you reply to my post at all? >>> >>> By the way, saying you won't or can't answer is fine. That's a valid >>> response to someone asking about what you've been saying. So is not >>> replying at all. What makes you so obviously a crank is your need for >>> others to pay attention to you whilst you ignore what they have to say. >>> >> >> As far as what I have said about H needing to analyze its own behavior >> when it is assessing the halt status of P it is like I smash a Boston >> cream pie in their face and they say Glub, Glub Glub there is no pie: > > You can say something as many times as you want. Unless you actually > provide a compelling justification people aren't going to accept it. And > thus far you definitely have *not* provided any compelling justification. > > But, if your claim that the code of H has absolutely no affect on the > behaviour of P(P) were true, then presumably your code would work > exactly the same way if it *didn't* ignore the code to H. > > Since no one has thus far accepted your claim that the code of H can be > ignored, wouldn't it be simpler to simply stop ignoring it? No. > (after all, > if it has not affect it shouldn't matter whether you ignore it or not). > Then you wouldn't have to convince people of this dubious claim. > > André Not accepting what I say because people are in their "win an argument" mode is not at all the same as showing any error in what I say: If X cannot possibly have any effect on Y while Z then the behavior of X can be ignored while Z. X=H Y=P Z=halt status decision by H about P is being made -- 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 | 2021-09-10 17:07 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <shgoem$q8o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #39275 |
On 2021-09-10 16:38, olcott wrote: > On 9/10/2021 5:10 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2021-09-10 15:30, olcott wrote: >>> On 9/10/2021 3:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 9/10/2021 4:37 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> ... >>>>>>> Full disclosure. >>>>>> Of what? ... >>>> >>>>> H1/H no longer seems... >>>> >>>> You started a post saying "full disclosure", so a I asked about some of >>>> the things that you have never disclosed. Your reply answered none of >>>> these questions. Why did you reply to my post at all? >>>> >>>> By the way, saying you won't or can't answer is fine. That's a valid >>>> response to someone asking about what you've been saying. So is not >>>> replying at all. What makes you so obviously a crank is your need for >>>> others to pay attention to you whilst you ignore what they have to say. >>>> >>> >>> As far as what I have said about H needing to analyze its own >>> behavior when it is assessing the halt status of P it is like I smash >>> a Boston cream pie in their face and they say Glub, Glub Glub there >>> is no pie: >> >> You can say something as many times as you want. Unless you actually >> provide a compelling justification people aren't going to accept it. >> And thus far you definitely have *not* provided any compelling >> justification. >> >> But, if your claim that the code of H has absolutely no affect on the >> behaviour of P(P) were true, then presumably your code would work >> exactly the same way if it *didn't* ignore the code to H. >> >> Since no one has thus far accepted your claim that the code of H can >> be ignored, wouldn't it be simpler to simply stop ignoring it? > > No. Then you'd better actually offer a *proof* of your position, not just assert it. Since you seem unable to do this, simply not ignoring H would be the easier option. Except that the behaviour of H will entirely change if H stops ignoring the code of H. That fact makes it rather clear that the code of H *does* in fact matter. >> (after all, if it has not affect it shouldn't matter whether you >> ignore it or not). Then you wouldn't have to convince people of this >> dubious claim. >> >> André > > Not accepting what I say because people are in their "win an argument" > mode is not at all the same as showing any error in what I say: > > If X cannot possibly have any effect on Y while Z then the behavior of X > can be ignored while Z. You have not demonstrated that X cannot possibly have any effect on Y while Z. You have merely asserted this as a baseless claim. The burden of proof lies with you. André -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-10 18:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <R4Wdnf25wfGydab8nZ2dnUU7-InNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #39276 |
On 9/10/2021 6:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-09-10 16:38, olcott wrote: >> On 9/10/2021 5:10 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >>> On 2021-09-10 15:30, olcott wrote: >>>> On 9/10/2021 3:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On 9/10/2021 4:37 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>>> ... >>>>>>>> Full disclosure. >>>>>>> Of what? ... >>>>> >>>>>> H1/H no longer seems... >>>>> >>>>> You started a post saying "full disclosure", so a I asked about >>>>> some of >>>>> the things that you have never disclosed. Your reply answered none of >>>>> these questions. Why did you reply to my post at all? >>>>> >>>>> By the way, saying you won't or can't answer is fine. That's a valid >>>>> response to someone asking about what you've been saying. So is not >>>>> replying at all. What makes you so obviously a crank is your need for >>>>> others to pay attention to you whilst you ignore what they have to >>>>> say. >>>>> >>>> >>>> As far as what I have said about H needing to analyze its own >>>> behavior when it is assessing the halt status of P it is like I >>>> smash a Boston cream pie in their face and they say Glub, Glub Glub >>>> there is no pie: >>> >>> You can say something as many times as you want. Unless you actually >>> provide a compelling justification people aren't going to accept it. >>> And thus far you definitely have *not* provided any compelling >>> justification. >>> >>> But, if your claim that the code of H has absolutely no affect on the >>> behaviour of P(P) were true, then presumably your code would work >>> exactly the same way if it *didn't* ignore the code to H. >>> >>> Since no one has thus far accepted your claim that the code of H can >>> be ignored, wouldn't it be simpler to simply stop ignoring it? >> >> No. > > Then you'd better actually offer a *proof* of your position, not just > assert it. > > Since you seem unable to do this, simply not ignoring H would be the > easier option. Except that the behaviour of H will entirely change if H > stops ignoring the code of H. That fact makes it rather clear that the > code of H *does* in fact matter. > >>> (after all, if it has not affect it shouldn't matter whether you >>> ignore it or not). Then you wouldn't have to convince people of this >>> dubious claim. >>> >>> André >> >> Not accepting what I say because people are in their "win an argument" >> mode is not at all the same as showing any error in what I say: >> >> If X cannot possibly have any effect on Y while Z then the behavior of >> X can be ignored while Z. > > You have not demonstrated that X cannot possibly have any effect on Y > while Z. You have merely asserted this as a baseless claim. The burden > of proof lies with you. > > André > No the lies are coming from you. It is self-evidence that while every recursive invocation of H is in pure simulation mode that it cannot possibly have any effect on the behavior of its input. This is proven by the definition of pure simulation. -- 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 | 2021-09-10 22:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <jdU_I.45877$%Z2.45585@fx06.iad> |
| In reply to | #39275 |
On 9/10/21 6:38 PM, olcott wrote: > On 9/10/2021 5:10 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2021-09-10 15:30, olcott wrote: >>> On 9/10/2021 3:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 9/10/2021 4:37 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >>>> ... >>>>>>> Full disclosure. >>>>>> Of what? ... >>>> >>>>> H1/H no longer seems... >>>> >>>> You started a post saying "full disclosure", so a I asked about some of >>>> the things that you have never disclosed. Your reply answered none of >>>> these questions. Why did you reply to my post at all? >>>> >>>> By the way, saying you won't or can't answer is fine. That's a valid >>>> response to someone asking about what you've been saying. So is not >>>> replying at all. What makes you so obviously a crank is your need for >>>> others to pay attention to you whilst you ignore what they have to say. >>>> >>> >>> As far as what I have said about H needing to analyze its own >>> behavior when it is assessing the halt status of P it is like I smash >>> a Boston cream pie in their face and they say Glub, Glub Glub there >>> is no pie: >> >> You can say something as many times as you want. Unless you actually >> provide a compelling justification people aren't going to accept it. >> And thus far you definitely have *not* provided any compelling >> justification. >> >> But, if your claim that the code of H has absolutely no affect on the >> behaviour of P(P) were true, then presumably your code would work >> exactly the same way if it *didn't* ignore the code to H. >> >> Since no one has thus far accepted your claim that the code of H can >> be ignored, wouldn't it be simpler to simply stop ignoring it? > > No. > >> (after all, if it has not affect it shouldn't matter whether you >> ignore it or not). Then you wouldn't have to convince people of this >> dubious claim. >> >> André > > Not accepting what I say because people are in their "win an argument" > mode is not at all the same as showing any error in what I say: Who is ignoring what you are saying, we are pointing out the FLAWS in your statement. YOU are the one ignoring what others are saying. > > If X cannot possibly have any effect on Y while Z then the behavior of X > can be ignored while Z. > > X=H > Y=P > Z=halt status decision by H about P is being made > WRONG. H0 can ignore H0's affect on the P1(P2) it is simulating, but it can not ignore the affect of H1 on P1, as it is actually part of P1, and is in fact the major part of the actual execution history of the machine. Think about the execution trace that UTM(P,P) would generate (since UTM isn't H, it can't ignore the behavior or H). Most of that time is actually spent inside H, not in the code of P ourside of H. H^.q0 -> H^.qx is relatively quick. H^.qn is just a halt. H^.qx -> H^.qn which is just the copy of H.q0 -> H.qn is where all the real behavior exists, so that is the important part of the trace. Thus we see that the H included in P has a MAJOR affect on the behavior of that P, so an H simulating P(P) needs to take that into account. Your 'logic' just doesn't work on that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-09-10 22:03 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H1(P,P) is a halt decider for P(P) [ Refuting Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <J7U_I.78606$Kv2.19293@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #39273 |
On 9/10/21 5:30 PM, olcott wrote: > On 9/10/2021 3:42 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> >>> On 9/10/2021 4:37 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes: >> ... >>>>> Full disclosure. >>>> Of what? ... >> >>> H1/H no longer seems... >> >> You started a post saying "full disclosure", so a I asked about some of >> the things that you have never disclosed. Your reply answered none of >> these questions. Why did you reply to my post at all? >> >> By the way, saying you won't or can't answer is fine. That's a valid >> response to someone asking about what you've been saying. So is not >> replying at all. What makes you so obviously a crank is your need for >> others to pay attention to you whilst you ignore what they have to say. >> > > As far as what I have said about H needing to analyze its own behavior > when it is assessing the halt status of P it is like I smash a Boston > cream pie in their face and they say Glub, Glub Glub there is no pie: > > If X cannot possibly have any effect on Y while Z then the behavior of X > can be ignored while Z. No, this is YOU saying what Pie when you have a face full of smashed pie. The simulating H can ignore the affect of THIS EXECUTION of H on the behavior of the machine it is simulating, it can NOT ignore the affect of other copies of it executing, as those are LITERALLY a significant part of the behavior of the machine it is simulating. > > X=H > Y=P > Z=halt status decision by H about P is being made > > Shown to be false in another post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 28 of 37 — ← Prev page 1 … 26 27 [28] 29 30 … 37 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web