Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #36666 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-07-19 21:46 +0100 |
| Last post | 2021-07-20 14:17 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 525 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mr Flibble <flibble@reddwarf.jmc> - 2021-07-19 21:46 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-19 14:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-07-20 21:06 +0200
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 13:43 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 13:56 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 14:16 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 14:50 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 22:33 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-20 23:30 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-21 13:17 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-22 13:35 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-22 22:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 14:22 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 14:30 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-23 23:15 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 15:28 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-23 16:49 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 16:09 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-24 02:34 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 21:53 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 21:54 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-08-05 15:37 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 17:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-05 11:41 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-05 11:48 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-08-05 20:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 13:55 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-05 15:51 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-08-05 23:20 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 13:53 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 22:21 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:42 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:48 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:49 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 15:52 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 21:58 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 16:10 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 16:14 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 16:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-24 12:50 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-24 00:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 16:59 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 00:42 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 12:55 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 13:13 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 14:08 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-24 18:07 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 01:50 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-24 20:58 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 04:03 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 04:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-25 13:34 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 17:14 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 10:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-25 13:10 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 11:31 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-25 13:22 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-25 12:43 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 12:25 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 12:46 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 13:04 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-25 16:58 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 20:38 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 20:52 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 13:54 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox rather than contradiction ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-25 22:53 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox rather than contradiction ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 21:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox rather than contradiction ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-25 23:09 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:20 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 07:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 10:09 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 11:41 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 11:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 14:40 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 15:29 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-26 11:16 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 13:57 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 13:55 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 15:34 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 14:53 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 16:01 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 19:14 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 18:21 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:03 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 19:24 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:30 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 20:34 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 22:18 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 21:24 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 22:31 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 21:55 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 23:39 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 22:59 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 10:27 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 22:22 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-27 02:42 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 10:24 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 08:54 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( finally quit lying ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 11:05 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( finally quit lying ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 09:29 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 12:07 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 11:17 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 13:29 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-27 11:47 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 14:10 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-27 12:58 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 16:23 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 11:01 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 09:25 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 21:38 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 16:14 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 16:20 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 15:04 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ]( attention deficit disorder ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 00:33 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-27 11:16 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 12:31 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-27 13:42 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 17:20 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-27 22:11 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-27 21:39 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 09:09 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 09:31 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 11:38 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 10:08 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 13:35 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 12:47 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 14:07 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 12:56 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 17:25 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 22:25 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 21:36 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 23:09 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 21:50 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 23:57 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 23:10 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 13:07 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 11:52 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 13:52 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ PSR Decider is fully operational ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 22:35 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 12:40 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 15:06 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 13:35 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 17:36 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 22:51 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 21:08 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 22:15 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 23:31 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-28 23:00 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 12:39 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 12:15 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 13:50 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ self-contradiction must be treated differently ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 22:18 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 13:15 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 12:25 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 13:55 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 17:50 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 16:58 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 18:27 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 18:25 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 19:54 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-29 18:08 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-29 19:25 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 23:34 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 22:44 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 20:42 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-30 18:57 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 21:08 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-30 20:54 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 09:14 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-31 08:02 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 10:20 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 08:41 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 12:00 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 11:25 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 13:52 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 12:14 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 14:41 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 12:54 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 15:39 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 15:11 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-31 15:37 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 08:26 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 11:35 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 11:31 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 13:57 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 12:23 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 14:52 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 13:02 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 15:43 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ][ How can H ignore own behavior? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 15:18 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-30 08:54 -0600
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 10:58 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-30 13:23 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] [ Try and provide a counter-example ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-29 16:15 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 09:34 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-28 02:41 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 08:56 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 09:37 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 22:04 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 16:22 -0500
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-28 15:06 -0700
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 21:54 +0100
Re: André doesn't know Rice's Theorem [ Malcolm ] Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-27 11:21 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 21:17 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ André doesn't know Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 20:25 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 19:36 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 18:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 21:28 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 21:46 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 23:42 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-26 01:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-25 18:20 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:32 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 07:57 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-07-26 09:57 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-27 02:17 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:41 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 19:57 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 08:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-27 00:48 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 20:06 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 19:40 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 22:44 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 17:08 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 15:22 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 18:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 20:52 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 00:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 18:35 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-29 01:58 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 20:54 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-28 20:56 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 01:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 20:00 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-29 18:11 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 02:52 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 21:08 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 12:39 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 09:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 20:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 21:28 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-29 19:38 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 13:39 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 09:54 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 20:58 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 20:16 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-31 23:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 21:20 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 11:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-01 05:12 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 13:41 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-01 07:25 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 16:30 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-01 11:41 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 20:26 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 14:45 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 13:28 -0700
Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 11:02 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 10:02 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 08:21 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 17:00 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 10:48 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 19:51 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 17:31 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 00:23 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 22:33 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 22:56 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 23:12 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 20:17 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:30 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-06 03:36 +0100
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 21:50 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 01:34 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ][ GIGO ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 19:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 09:45 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 08:24 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 22:45 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 22:12 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-02 20:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 15:53 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-03 01:11 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 19:55 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-03 02:45 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 21:11 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-02 21:57 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 13:53 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 11:15 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 20:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 17:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 00:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 22:18 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 23:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-05 02:02 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 07:07 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:35 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 23:15 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 20:48 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-06 03:35 +0100
Page 6 conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 21:46 -0500
Re: Page 6 conclusively proves that H(P,P)==0 is correct. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 01:38 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 22:01 -0500
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 22:13 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 22:29 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 22:23 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 21:44 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 21:56 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:00 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-08-03 21:12 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 22:16 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:25 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 22:36 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:55 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 23:36 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 10:14 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 21:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-04 07:13 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ]( Honest Dialogue ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 10:11 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:29 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 22:35 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 19:37 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 15:37 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 23:23 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 22:37 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 22:48 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-05 23:14 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 20:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:41 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ Only Inputs Count ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-06 03:36 +0100
Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 21:54 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 22:37 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 22:44 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-08-05 22:51 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-08 01:34 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-09 17:32 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-09 21:14 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 01:42 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 19:46 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 20:06 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 02:41 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 20:53 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 03:26 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 21:40 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 16:04 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 10:10 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 10:15 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 00:04 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 18:16 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 02:20 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 21:03 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 21:09 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben's key param agreement ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 21:08 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-11 17:32 -0600
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 18:40 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-08-11 23:11 -0600
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 01:36 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 07:24 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-12 08:40 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 10:50 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-13 01:58 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 08:30 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 22:01 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 16:15 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 10:29 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. (fixed type) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 21:42 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. // fixed typo (link added) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-10 23:36 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 09:28 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 09:58 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 17:10 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 11:52 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 01:35 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 19:40 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 19:44 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 21:00 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 15:36 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 22:10 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 16:26 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 00:00 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 18:28 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 18:33 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 01:26 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 19:49 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 02:05 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 20:19 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 21:44 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 02:49 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 21:20 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 10:01 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 08:35 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 21:20 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 15:56 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 22:28 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 16:33 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 23:06 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 17:12 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 23:25 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 17:47 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. "dklei...@gmail.com" <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2021-08-13 16:54 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 22:35 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-14 13:22 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-13 20:41 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (another typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 17:24 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 01:53 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 20:14 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 02:51 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-12 21:21 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 22:57 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-13 09:53 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-13 08:31 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 21:38 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Ben accepts one point? ] (typo fixed ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 22:09 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 14:53 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 01:01 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 19:26 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 02:28 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 18:07 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-12 02:35 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Halting Problem is solved for Ĥ on ⟨Ĥ⟩ ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-11 21:14 -0500
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. [ Is Ben a Liar or simply woefully ignorant? ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-12 07:49 -0400
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-10 23:40 -0700
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-11 11:48 +0100
Re: Ĥ.qx ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn is correct and forms no contradiction. Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-11 04:09 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 22:56 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 22:13 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-02 20:11 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] [ succinct ] Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-31 15:47 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-28 21:52 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 02:18 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-29 21:05 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 12:00 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 09:35 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-30 20:22 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-30 19:42 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-30 18:27 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-31 22:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 16:57 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2021-07-31 15:48 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-01 11:39 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-01 22:17 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-01 20:36 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-02 17:31 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 13:16 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 13:25 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-03 01:20 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-02 20:01 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-02 22:03 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-02 22:29 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 08:00 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-08-03 07:33 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 10:21 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 11:11 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 14:26 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 14:08 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 15:47 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 14:56 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 16:03 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 15:26 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 16:50 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 16:35 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 19:42 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 19:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 20:24 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 21:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 22:30 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2021-08-03 22:00 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-03 23:03 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 22:08 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-08-04 10:48 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 21:52 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-04 09:38 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-04 20:43 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ][ André refuses an honest dialogue ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 09:04 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? )[ Only: H(P,P)==0 ][ André refuses an honest dialogue ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-05 20:41 -0500
H(P,P)==0 is proven to be correct [ André refuses an honest dialogue ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-08-05 09:07 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-08-03 07:36 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-31 23:53 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-31 21:47 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ Ĥ.qx(⟨Ĥ⟩,⟨Ĥ⟩) == Ĥ.qn ] ( Are you game ? ) Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-31 20:07 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2021-07-26 09:46 -0500
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is correct ] Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-26 08:05 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-25 21:32 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 15:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 15:26 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-25 16:56 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 23:21 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 23:44 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 17:18 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 19:15 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2021-07-25 23:04 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2021-07-26 11:06 +0000
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 14:17 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 06:29 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 14:32 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 07:08 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 15:36 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-26 08:32 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-26 18:08 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-26 11:38 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 19:31 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-26 13:42 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-26 22:49 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 23:57 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-27 13:47 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-26 23:16 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2021-07-27 12:10 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-27 12:48 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-28 17:25 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-28 11:32 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> - 2021-07-26 15:13 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-24 20:35 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-25 10:54 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 07:10 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-25 12:56 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-22 14:52 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-23 14:20 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-07-23 14:34 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 05:46 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-21 14:12 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-07-21 06:27 -0700
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-07-21 16:28 +0100
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2021-07-20 15:14 -0600
Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-07-20 14:17 -0700
Page 26 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 24 25 [26] 27 Next page →
| From | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 11:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <sdmruo$bam$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37091 |
On 7/26/2021 11:08 AM, Andy Walker wrote: > On 26/07/2021 15:36, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> In 1979 CS degrees were not that common, but I also suspect there was a >> measure of snobbery involved -- CS was an upstart subject and could not, >> surely, fill a whole honours degree. > > There's a large element of truth in that. The last bit, that is. > To put it differently, computers then were mostly large, expensive things > that occupied large rooms if not entire buildings. Yeah, there were mini > computers, but they were widely regarded as toys. Playing games or music > or videos on computers was largely forbidden. The whole point of a > computer was to solve problems -- differential equations, things with > large matrices, simulations, timetabling, big data, that sort of thing. > So you needed (a) engineers who could install computers and keep them > running, (b) programmers who could understand a real-world problem and > turn it into computerese, and (c) people who could write compilers and > operating systems. For (a) you needed a substantial dollop of advanced > engineering. For (b) you needed a dollop of university maths/physics/ > whatever to enable you to understand the problems and how to solve them > in computer terms. For (c) you needed substantial experience of > advanced computing. None of that was really "a whole honours degree", > esp given [in those days] a virtual absence of textbooks*. > > It made more sense to set up a joint degree, eg maths and CS. > We [maths, Nott'm] had enough computing modules for that. But in the > end we were overtaken by politics. We "had" to have a full CS dept > and course, like it or not, or be left behind by our rivals. Once > you have such a dept/course, then the content expands to fill the > available time; but that's another matter. Computers today bear > little relationship to those of the 1970s, making it more sensible > to have full CS courses; and graduates thereof who know virtually > nothing about maths or physics or anything else beyond school level. > > ____ > * There was a chicken-egg problem. In the absence, or only recent > establishment, of proper CS courses, few undergraduate CS texts > were produced or sold -- no market for them. In the absence of > proper texts, it was harder to set up good CS courses. The USA in the same time frame had sprouted CS programs at most universities, both public and private. Further, there had developed strong ties nationally and an interesting community emerged during the 1970s. That community, from the 1960s on, included Europeans and soon Asians too; there were also research islands in Mexico mostly manned by US expats. The delay in Asia interactions was mostly political: their researchers could not talk or travel to the West. BTW, this community was not just an early US invention, there was strong early forces from your cold countries too. I'm somewhat surprised to hear in this thread that you all believe that your real entry into the CS world occurred so late. My impression from this side of the pond was that the British Isles were well on there way by then. Perhaps we had better funding in place and that certainly helps but money can't necessarily buy interests from smart guys. -- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 19:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <878s1tapvq.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37093 |
Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes: > The USA in the same time frame had sprouted CS programs at most > universities, both public and private. Further, there had developed > strong ties nationally and an interesting community emerged during the > 1970s. That community, from the 1960s on, included Europeans and soon > Asians too; there were also research islands in Mexico mostly manned > by US expats. The delay in Asia interactions was mostly political: > their researchers could not talk or travel to the West. BTW, this > community was not just an early US invention, there was strong early > forces from your cold countries too. > > I'm somewhat surprised to hear in this thread that you all believe > that your real entry into the CS world occurred so late. My impression > from this side of the pond was that the British Isles were well on > there way by then. Perhaps we had better funding in place and that > certainly helps but money can't necessarily buy interests from smart > guys. I'm not sure what you've taken from the thread that suggests some sort of late entry. Your impression is that the UK was well on the way, but I'm not sure where to, so I can't confirm or deny. I don't think the UK was noticeably behind the curve in CS education. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 13:42 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <sdn36o$vp2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37095 |
On 7/26/2021 12:31 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes: > >> The USA in the same time frame had sprouted CS programs at most >> universities, both public and private. Further, there had developed >> strong ties nationally and an interesting community emerged during the >> 1970s. That community, from the 1960s on, included Europeans and soon >> Asians too; there were also research islands in Mexico mostly manned >> by US expats. The delay in Asia interactions was mostly political: >> their researchers could not talk or travel to the West. BTW, this >> community was not just an early US invention, there was strong early >> forces from your cold countries too. >> >> I'm somewhat surprised to hear in this thread that you all believe >> that your real entry into the CS world occurred so late. My impression >> from this side of the pond was that the British Isles were well on >> there way by then. Perhaps we had better funding in place and that >> certainly helps but money can't necessarily buy interests from smart >> guys. > > I'm not sure what you've taken from the thread that suggests some sort > of late entry. Your impression is that the UK was well on the way, but > I'm not sure where to, so I can't confirm or deny. I don't think the UK > was noticeably behind the curve in CS education. Well there were comments about lack of textbooks, emphasis on problem solving (implied not theory), comment on not "a whole honours degree", etc. It sounded like a description of a program that wasn't well started yet. I believed otherwise. Yes computers were expensive and many institutions hadn't decided whether CS was primarily an extension of EE, mathematics, both, or neither (not really an academic area). However, the world as a whole was on its merry way and CS was well established by the middle-late 1970s. That seemed fairly clear to others and myself on this side of the pond. Perhaps I misread the inner intent of some of the comments in this thread that made me think some of you thought otherwise. -- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 22:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sdnakg$1nig$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #37098 |
Jeff Barnett wrote: > On 7/26/2021 12:31 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes: >> >>> The USA in the same time frame had sprouted CS programs at most >>> universities, both public and private. Further, there had developed >>> strong ties nationally and an interesting community emerged during the >>> 1970s. That community, from the 1960s on, included Europeans and soon >>> Asians too; there were also research islands in Mexico mostly manned >>> by US expats. The delay in Asia interactions was mostly political: >>> their researchers could not talk or travel to the West. BTW, this >>> community was not just an early US invention, there was strong early >>> forces from your cold countries too. >>> >>> I'm somewhat surprised to hear in this thread that you all believe >>> that your real entry into the CS world occurred so late. My impression >>> from this side of the pond was that the British Isles were well on >>> there way by then. Perhaps we had better funding in place and that >>> certainly helps but money can't necessarily buy interests from smart >>> guys. >> >> I'm not sure what you've taken from the thread that suggests some sort >> of late entry. Your impression is that the UK was well on the way, but >> I'm not sure where to, so I can't confirm or deny. I don't think the UK >> was noticeably behind the curve in CS education. > > Well there were comments about lack of textbooks, emphasis on problem > solving (implied not theory), comment on not "a whole honours degree", > etc. It sounded like a description of a program that wasn't well started > yet. I believed otherwise. Yes computers were expensive and many > institutions hadn't decided whether CS was primarily an extension of EE, > mathematics, both, or neither (not really an academic area). However, > the world as a whole was on its merry way and CS was well established by > the middle-late 1970s. That seemed fairly clear to others and myself on > this side of the pond. Perhaps I misread the inner intent of some of the > comments in this thread that made me think some of you thought otherwise. In my day there was something called a conversion MSc. If one had a first degree in a numerate subject (1st or 2.2, probably) one could take an MSc in computing that did not presuppose any first degree exposure to computing. Do they still exist? Where they (or are they) a good idea? -- The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 23:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87wnpcadjz.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37103 |
Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> writes: > In my day there was something called a conversion MSc. If one had a > first degree in a numerate subject (1st or 2.2, probably) one could > take an MSc in computing that did not presuppose any first degree > exposure to computing. Do they still exist? Where they (or are they) > a good idea? I think they are much less common than they used to be, but I note with some pride that the one I used to run is still going. I think it was the second one started in the UK, after Cambridge's diploma course. Obviously I think they are (or at least were) a very good idea, but then I am clearly biased. From the other side, the students were great -- motivated and enthusiastic with a ride range of prior experience. We admitted students fresh out of an undergraduate degree as well as many with significant careers already under their belts. And we would often take a punt on good students with unusual degrees and/or backgrounds. Such courses were usually a full calendar year, with the summer taken up with a significant (supervised) dissertation. You can fit a lot into a full 12 month course. (I always hated the "you have the summer off" myth of academia.) -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-27 13:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sdov9q$1tl0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #37106 |
Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> writes: > >> In my day there was something called a conversion MSc. If one had a >> first degree in a numerate subject (1st or 2.2, probably) one could "2.2" should have been "2.1". >> take an MSc in computing that did not presuppose any first degree >> exposure to computing. Do they still exist? Where they (or are they) >> a good idea? > > I think they are much less common than they used to be, but I note with > some pride that the one I used to run is still going Respec'! > . I think it was > the second one started in the UK, after Cambridge's diploma course. > Obviously I think they are (or at least were) a very good idea, but then > I am clearly biased. > > From the other side, the students were great -- motivated and > enthusiastic with a ride range of prior experience. We admitted > students fresh out of an undergraduate degree as well as many with > significant careers already under their belts. And we would often take > a punt on good students with unusual degrees and/or backgrounds. > > Such courses were usually a full calendar year, with the summer taken up > with a significant (supervised) dissertation. You can fit a lot into a > full 12 month course. (I always hated the "you have the summer off" > myth of academia.) > -- The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 23:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8735s0bu1d.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37098 |
Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes: > On 7/26/2021 12:31 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes: >> >>> The USA in the same time frame had sprouted CS programs at most >>> universities, both public and private. Further, there had developed >>> strong ties nationally and an interesting community emerged during the >>> 1970s. That community, from the 1960s on, included Europeans and soon >>> Asians too; there were also research islands in Mexico mostly manned >>> by US expats. The delay in Asia interactions was mostly political: >>> their researchers could not talk or travel to the West. BTW, this >>> community was not just an early US invention, there was strong early >>> forces from your cold countries too. >>> >>> I'm somewhat surprised to hear in this thread that you all believe >>> that your real entry into the CS world occurred so late. My impression >>> from this side of the pond was that the British Isles were well on >>> there way by then. Perhaps we had better funding in place and that >>> certainly helps but money can't necessarily buy interests from smart >>> guys. >> >> I'm not sure what you've taken from the thread that suggests some sort >> of late entry. Your impression is that the UK was well on the way, but >> I'm not sure where to, so I can't confirm or deny. I don't think the UK >> was noticeably behind the curve in CS education. > > Well there were comments about lack of textbooks, emphasis on problem > solving (implied not theory), comment on not "a whole honours degree", > etc. It sounded like a description of a program that wasn't well > started yet. The first ever CS qualification was the Cambridge Diploma which started in 1953. I'm pretty sure you would not find any reliable textbooks then! In the UK, this set something of a precedent. Lots of universities ran postgraduate diploma or MSc courses so you could "top-up" a degree in maths or engineering (or, indeed, pretty much anything) to get a grounding in CS. Many of these courses were excellent. Exactly how the development of full undergraduate degree programs panned out in the UK vs the US I don't know. I suspect the US was a few years ahead, in terms of numbers, but I might be mistaken. > I believed otherwise. Yes computers were expensive and > many institutions hadn't decided whether CS was primarily an extension > of EE, mathematics, both, or neither (not really an academic > area). However, the world as a whole was on its merry way and CS was > well established by the middle-late 1970s. That seemed fairly clear to > others and myself on this side of the pond. There was something well established by then, but was it really what we'd call CS now? I'm not sure. > Perhaps I misread the > inner intent of some of the comments in this thread that made me think > some of you thought otherwise. I think we're probably just talking about different things. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-27 12:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sdopjn$164k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #37098 |
On 26/07/2021 20:42, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 7/26/2021 12:31 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes:
>>> The USA in the same time frame had sprouted CS programs at most
>>> universities, both public and private.
Well, it depends what you mean by "CS programs". Ben and I
were talking about [the paucity of] full honours degrees in CS --
IOW, 18yos arriving at university, doing CS full time from day 1,
and graduating three years later having done little else but CS
for the duration. That's much harder to set up and run than what
"most universities" in the UK did, which was to tack elements of
CS onto maths/engineering/... degrees, as components of those
degrees, as conversion courses, or as postgrad diplomas. So CS
programs of some sort or other were common in the UK; full CS
degree courses were rarer. See also below.
[...]
>>> I'm somewhat surprised to hear in this thread that you all believe
>>> that your real entry into the CS world occurred so late. My impression
>>> from this side of the pond was that the British Isles were well on
>>> there way by then. Perhaps we had better funding in place and that
>>> certainly helps but money can't necessarily buy interests from smart
>>> guys.
The UK and Europe were perfectly well advanced in computing,
in terms of hardware, languages, research, ...; in many ways, ahead
of the USA. The USA tended to buy IBM and throw money around; the
rest of the world had to be more ingenious.
>> I'm not sure what you've taken from the thread that suggests some sort
>> of late entry. Your impression is that the UK was well on the way, but
>> I'm not sure where to, so I can't confirm or deny. I don't think the UK
>> was noticeably behind the curve in CS education.
Indeed.
> Well there were comments about lack of textbooks, emphasis on problem
> solving (implied not theory), comment on not "a whole honours
> degree", etc. It sounded like a description of a program that wasn't
> well started yet. I believed otherwise. Yes computers were expensive
> and many institutions hadn't decided whether CS was primarily an
> extension of EE, mathematics, both, or neither (not really an
> academic area). However, the world as a whole was on its merry way
> and CS was well established by the middle-late 1970s. That seemed
> fairly clear to others and myself on this side of the pond. Perhaps I
> misread the inner intent of some of the comments in this thread that
> made me think some of you thought otherwise.
A full honours program running in Autumn 1979 would have
had to be advertised from Autumn 1978, else you would have no or
very few applicants. So you would have to spend the academic year
1977-78 at the latest devising syllabuses, getting regulations
through relevant academic bodies, sorting out staff and equipment,
etc, and this process would have to be in someone's mind in 1976-77.
To set the time frame -- that's just about when Unix started to
spread in universities. That was the first catalyst for letting
students somewhat loose on real computers; instead of a mainframe
being used 24/7 for research, you have one or more relatively cheap
minis with source available for compilers, OS, ...; you have discs
and terminals, editors and word-processing. The second catalyst
was the ready availability shortly afterwards of personal computers
and micros, and then inter-computer communication.
IOW, any full course [again, as opposed to things like
"maths with computing" degrees or "NA and computing diplomas" or
similar] already running in the mid-late 1970s would have been
very constrained; within a very few years, it was much easier to
run interesting/useful courses.
--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Galos
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-27 12:48 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <sdpkd3$o0m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37134 |
On 7/27/2021 5:10 AM, Andy Walker wrote: > On 26/07/2021 20:42, Jeff Barnett wrote: >> On 7/26/2021 12:31 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes: >>>> The USA in the same time frame had sprouted CS programs at most >>>> universities, both public and private. > > Well, it depends what you mean by "CS programs". Ben and I > were talking about [the paucity of] full honours degrees in CS -- > IOW, 18yos arriving at university, doing CS full time from day 1, > and graduating three years later having done little else but CS > for the duration. That's much harder to set up and run than what > "most universities" in the UK did, which was to tack elements of > CS onto maths/engineering/... degrees, as components of those > degrees, as conversion courses, or as postgrad diplomas. So CS > programs of some sort or other were common in the UK; full CS > degree courses were rarer. See also below. That's what I had in mind. The number of CS degree programs shot up dramatically as we went from mid 1960s to mid 1970s. The 1960s saw a good number of programs offering Masters and PhD in CS. >>>> I'm somewhat surprised to hear in this thread that you all believe >>>> that your real entry into the CS world occurred so late. My impression >>>> from this side of the pond was that the British Isles were well on >>>> there way by then. Perhaps we had better funding in place and that >>>> certainly helps but money can't necessarily buy interests from smart >>>> guys. > > The UK and Europe were perfectly well advancedin computing, > in terms of hardware, languages, research, ...; in many ways, ahead > of the USA. The USA tended to buy IBM and throw money around; the > rest of the world had to be more ingenious. I'm aware of that, e.g., Plessey ultra reliable computers, but note that IBM was virtually giving decent computers to universities. Their marketing, at that time record sharp, thought that if students were trained on IBM equipment, then their future employers would find good sense in using IBM equipment. IBM also supplied low-cost or free computers to foreign universities: National Polytechnic Institute, Mexico was one example. Adolfo Guzman Arenas, from there, was the first Mexican PhD in CS (MIT) in early middle 1960s. There was a huge influx of ideas and accomplishments from Europe at that time. >>> I'm not sure what you've taken from the thread that suggests some sort >>> of late entry. Your impression is that the UK was well on the way, but >>> I'm not sure where to, so I can't confirm or deny. I don't think the UK >>> was noticeably behind the curve in CS education. > > Indeed. >> Well there were comments about lackof textbooks, emphasis on problem >> solving (implied not theory), comment on not "a whole honours >> degree", etc. It sounded like a description of a program that wasn't >> well started yet. I believed otherwise. Yes computers were expensive >> and many institutions hadn't decided whether CS was primarily an >> extension of EE, mathematics, both, or neither (not really an >> academic area). However, the world as a whole was on its merry way >> and CS was well established by the middle-late 1970s. That seemed >> fairly clear to others and myself on this side of the pond. Perhaps I >> misread the inner intent of some of the comments in this thread that >> made me think some of you thought otherwise. > A full honours program running in Autumn 1979 would have > had to be advertised from Autumn 1978, else you would have no or > very few applicants. So you would have to spend the academic year > 1977-78 at the latest devising syllabuses, getting regulations > through relevant academic bodies, sorting out staff and equipment, > etc, and this process would have to be in someone's mind in 1976-77. > To set the time frame -- that's just about when Unix started to > spread in universities. That was the first catalyst for letting > students somewhat loose on real computers; instead of a mainframe > being used 24/7 for research, you have one or more relatively cheap > minis with source available for compilers, OS, ...; you have discs > and terminals, editors and word-processing. The second catalyst > was the ready availability shortly afterwards of personal computers > and micros, and then inter-computer communication. UNIX machines, AKA PDP 11s, were being handed out to universities and research institutes in the very early 1970s. And DARPA was handing out PDP 6/10 and IBM 360s by then also. "Handing out" was to schools with DARPA grants. Their research net was up and running in that time frame too. We were doing joint research and development, using the net and time sharing systems also. The early net was a big boast and incentive to CS development in this country and a big incentive to "do" CS. > IOW, any full course [again, as opposed to things like > "maths with computing" degrees or "NA and computing diplomas" or > similar] already running in the mid-late 1970s would have been > very constrained; within a very few years, it was much easier to > run interesting/useful courses. University of California, at Irvine started classes in 1965. In the early 1970s, I taught a few CS classes - a graduate seminar on computer speech synthesis and recognition and a senior projects course. They were offering a PhD program by the time I was there. They were specializing in system theory, networking, foundations, and a few other topics with some reasonable success. UCI was part of the same university organization as UCLA, UC Berkley, UC Davis, and a half dozen others. Many had strong programs with PhD by the early middle 1960s. I hope these comments are helpful. The reason I popped into what might be called an "old boy reunion" was that I thought you all were holding too negative views of back-then. And I thought that was off target since everything I knew was positive, i.e., great people there participating and contributing leadership to the current scientific revolution. (Of course that phrase now refers to the jump in genetics that fast, cheap, and useful computation capabilities has enabled.) -- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 17:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87h7ge8ky0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37154 |
I'm picking just a few lines because I think they need clarification... Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes: > The number of CS degree programs shot up dramatically as we went from > mid 1960s to mid 1970s. It's not clear if you mean full-length undergraduate degree programs. In the UK there were very few of these, even by the mid 70s. I have no idea how many there were in USA so it would be interesting to know if this is what you meant. > The 1960s saw a good number of programs offering Masters and PhD in > CS. That was the case in the UK as well. > University of California, at Irvine started classes in 1965. In the > early 1970s, I taught a few CS classes - a graduate seminar on > computer speech synthesis and recognition and a senior projects > course. They were offering a PhD program by the time I was there. Do you know when a full-length undergraduate program stated there? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-28 11:32 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <sds4bp$qfd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37191 |
On 7/28/2021 10:25 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > I'm picking just a few lines because I think they need clarification... > > Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> writes: > >> The number of CS degree programs shot up dramatically as we went from >> mid 1960s to mid 1970s. > > It's not clear if you mean full-length undergraduate degree programs. > In the UK there were very few of these, even by the mid 70s. I have no > idea how many there were in USA so it would be interesting to know if > this is what you meant. Yes, I meant full blown undergraduate programs and the number of master and PhD programs was not far behind. By the mid 1970s the "career to die for" or at least to get well paid for doing novel things with CS. The field was well enough established to have lots and lots of scam schools advertising programs (by mail) to get some sort of credential in the information sciences. >> The 1960s saw a good number of programs offering Masters and PhD in >> CS. > > That was the case in the UK as well. > >> University of California, at Irvine started classes in 1965. In the >> early 1970s, I taught a few CS classes - a graduate seminar on >> computer speech synthesis and recognition and a senior projects >> course. They were offering a PhD program by the time I was there. > > Do you know when a full-length undergraduate program stated there? When the University of California system thought there was a need to expand their overall offerings, they erected 5 or 6 new large campuses (campi?); UCI was one of then. They all opened there doors circa 1965 for students. The senior projects course that I taught was to the first group that had started the CS program there, i.e., the class was full of fourth year undergraduates. (Do you folks run three year programs instead?) There were also several PhD students that had got to the point of approved dissertation topics, committees, etc., and were busy writing. From these recollections, I assumed they started their full CS degree program around 1968 plus or minus a year. Other schools in the University of California system (UCLA, UC Berkeley for example) were in business much earlier. -- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Peter <peterxpercival@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 15:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <sdmfv7$102c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #37068 |
Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > >> Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>> Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> writes: >> >>>> Anyway I would be with you on the "static" vs. operational (temporal) >>>> process question, but we might both be outliers I guess. [Something >>>> you said a few years back raised the possibility in my mind that >>>> perhaps we had both studied at the same university, possibly even >>>> around the same time. (Cambridge, 1979-1981.)] >> >>> Blimey, yes. Peterhouse. >> >> Hah! Emmanuel, 1976-1980. I had to content myself with a Junior >> Optime, though. > > There's a clique, here! In the sense of graph theory? > > I moved into the two-year Computer Science Tripos (the only way to do CS > at the time) so I avoided the silly titles! > -- The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-24 20:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cf560019-817d-418f-9110-9a286c272345n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37011 |
On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 11:03:50 UTC+8, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 25/07/2021 01:50, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> > André G. Isaak <agi...@gm.invalid> writes:
> >
> >> On 2021-07-23 17:54, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> >>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.t...@gmail.com> writes:
> >>
> >>>> Sum[n=1..oo] 1/n^24 converges on 1.
> >>> Putting aside the value, the point is that the sum simply "is". It's
> >>> just daft to talk about addition taking time.
> >>
> >> A problem with convergent series is that there is a common
> >> misconception that such series represent a procedure for calculating a
> >> value rather than the value itself.
> >>
> >> While infinite series certainly suggest an algorithm for calculating a
> >> decimal approximation of some value to arbitrary precision, that's not
> >> really what they are. They are simple expressions of a mathematical
> >> equality.
> >>
> >> I think the view of 'series as procedures' is one of the reasons why
> >> so many crackp^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeople have problems accepting, e.g., that
> >> 0.999... = 1.
> >
> > Good point. Does this confusion occur in people with a maths
> > background? In maths, one is taught that
> >
> > lim_{x->oo} f(x) = y
> >
> > is simply a statement about a property of y and f, albeit a complicated
> > one:
> >
> > ∀ e > 0 [∃ c [∀ z > c [ |f(z) - y| < e ]]].
> >
> > There's no notion of process, or steps, or calculation. Just something
> > that either is the case (lim 1/x = 0) or is not the case (lim 1/x = 1).
> >
> Surely someone studying for degree level mathematics should not be
> confused by claims 0.9999... != 1 [I'll add the obvious proviso "with
> normal mathematical meanings for the terms"]. Such students would have
> studied properties of the reals (in particular their Archimedean
> property), and would properly understand what the notation used was
> claiming. But while at high school I did have a disagreement with one
> of my (A-level) maths teachers, who was firmly of the opinion that
> 0.9999... < 1 by an infinitesimal amount (without being too clear on
> exactly what that meant!).
It is very clear to me that 0.999...≠1, and lim(x->∞) 1/x=0 is wrong.
1. It is known limit arithmetic is very 'telepathic', you can find a lot of
mysterious/inconsistent examples by yourself or in Quora.
2. repeating decimals are not rational number
Simple explanation: repeating decimal occurs only while non-zero remainder exists.
https://sourceforge.net/projects/cscall/files/MisFiles/Infinity-zh.txt/download
> In any case, discussion of limits involves /abstract/ concepts and
> definitions, so there's NO CHANCE PO could properly understand any of
> that. I really do believe he is (pretty much) totally incapable of
> dealing with abstract reasoning and concepts. He would simply have one
> of his familiar "intuitions" as to how he thinks it all should work, and
> he'd repeat those over and over without any backing of coherent
> reasoning, even when he has led himself into some blatant contradiction!
> :) For PO I would expect "limit" in his mind to become some kind of
> computer program calculation loop or something.
>
> [More generally I'd hope maths students would look at results,
> definitions etc. as static or timeless in their nature as you're
> suggesting, e.g. should see TMs / computations as abstract "structures"
> related in particular ways without anthropomorphising them or confusing
> them with concrete (time-based) physical processes.]
>
> Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 10:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87o8aqen1a.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37015 |
wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> writes: > It is very clear to me that 0.999...≠1, and lim(x->∞) 1/x=0 is wrong. Do you know what lim(x->∞) 1/x means? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wij <wyniijj@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 07:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0fdd2483-df23-4c59-9f6c-94f856a0b79en@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37016 |
On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:54:44 UTC+8, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > wij <wyn...@gmail.com> writes: > > > It is very clear to me that 0.999...≠1, and lim(x->∞) 1/x=0 is wrong. > Do you know what lim(x->∞) 1/x means? > > -- > Ben. limit: an academically disguised word for 'approach'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 12:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sdkflf$s2o$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #37006 |
On 7/24/2021 5:07 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-07-23 17:54, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: > >>> Sum[n=1..oo] 1/n^24 converges on 1. >> >> Putting aside the value, the point is that the sum simply "is". It's >> just daft to talk about addition taking time. > > A problem with convergent series is that there is a common misconception > that such series represent a procedure for calculating a value rather > than the value itself. > > While infinite series certainly suggest an algorithm for calculating a > decimal approximation of some value to arbitrary precision, that's not > really what they are. They are simple expressions of a mathematical > equality. > > I think the view of 'series as procedures' is one of the reasons why so > many crackp^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeople have problems accepting, e.g., that > 0.999... = 1. .999... = 1 for sure. Its the limit, but it can be fun to break it down, step-by-step and draw it, and/or alter the steps.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-22 14:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cMlKI.54700$h8.48024@fx47.iad> |
| In reply to | #36885 |
On 7/22/21 1:35 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 7/21/2021 5:17 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> For some stupid reason I always thought that the halting problem >>> extends to all problems, and all programs. >> >> It is a problem in mathematics and, like all mathematics, it is based on >> sound definitions. It says nothing about "all programs" unless "all >> programs" is a well-specified set. In that case, "all programs" might >> well have a halting problem, and might even have a halting theorem. >> >> The problem is always grounded to the context of some formal model of >> computation like Turing machines, recursive functions or the lambda >> calculus. I say "always" but that has to exclude comp.theory which is >> dominated by silly ideas coming from people who don't know much about >> such format models. >> >>> Well, here is some pure sarcasm: >>> >>> Every program halts because they will not get to run >>> forever... Eventually, Earth will die. >> >> This is not just sarcasm. It's a plain fact. >> > > Well, based on this fact, can we say everything on Earth halts because > the planet will eventually die? > > Humm... It should be "helpful" to think about infinity, where the > program is being executed on a system that never dies. Its output is > being observed by beings that never die. > > Does the program halt in the realm of the infinite? The ACTUAL question for Computation Theory is does the Comutation reach the Halt state in a FINITE number of steps. If the Computation would reach the Halt State, but only after an Infinite Number of Steps (even if 'just' a countably infinite number of steps) it is called Non-Halting. That is the FIRM dividing line. Is the number of steps needed to get the answer a member of the Counting Numbers N. I suppose some other realm might be developed that allow for an 'infinite' number of steps, but that starts to get a bit harder to define.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-23 14:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <sdfbrq$14bi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #36890 |
On 7/22/2021 2:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/22/21 1:35 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: >> On 7/21/2021 5:17 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> For some stupid reason I always thought that the halting problem >>>> extends to all problems, and all programs. >>> >>> It is a problem in mathematics and, like all mathematics, it is based on >>> sound definitions. It says nothing about "all programs" unless "all >>> programs" is a well-specified set. In that case, "all programs" might >>> well have a halting problem, and might even have a halting theorem. >>> >>> The problem is always grounded to the context of some formal model of >>> computation like Turing machines, recursive functions or the lambda >>> calculus. I say "always" but that has to exclude comp.theory which is >>> dominated by silly ideas coming from people who don't know much about >>> such format models. >>> >>>> Well, here is some pure sarcasm: >>>> >>>> Every program halts because they will not get to run >>>> forever... Eventually, Earth will die. >>> >>> This is not just sarcasm. It's a plain fact. >>> >> >> Well, based on this fact, can we say everything on Earth halts because >> the planet will eventually die? >> >> Humm... It should be "helpful" to think about infinity, where the >> program is being executed on a system that never dies. Its output is >> being observed by beings that never die. >> >> Does the program halt in the realm of the infinite? > > The ACTUAL question for Computation Theory is does the Comutation reach > the Halt state in a FINITE number of steps. Theoretically, what if the program does halt in a FINITE number of steps but it would take so long that the Earth would be dead by then. How can the halt decider determine that? > > If the Computation would reach the Halt State, but only after an > Infinite Number of Steps (even if 'just' a countably infinite number of > steps) it is called Non-Halting. > > That is the FIRM dividing line. Is the number of steps needed to get the > answer a member of the Counting Numbers N. > > I suppose some other realm might be developed that allow for an > 'infinite' number of steps, but that starts to get a bit harder to define. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-23 14:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <oBGKI.19827$o_5.3578@fx29.iad> |
| In reply to | #36926 |
On 7/23/21 2:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 7/22/2021 2:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> The ACTUAL question for Computation Theory is does the Comutation reach >> the Halt state in a FINITE number of steps. > > Theoretically, what if the program does halt in a FINITE number of steps > but it would take so long that the Earth would be dead by then. How can > the halt decider determine that? > The key is that Turing Machines are purely theoretical machines. They run in 'steps' that don't have any actual fixed time period, so any finite number of steps can be done in a finite time at some finite computation rate. It doesn't matter that we can't actually build hardware to do it that fast. There are MANY things in Mathematics that we can never actually physically compute exactly, but we talk about having an exact value.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-21 05:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cc2df203-aaad-46d3-a7bc-ef777bf7c177n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #36762 |
On Wednesday, 21 July 2021 at 06:33:13 UTC+1, Chris M. Thomasson wrote: > On 7/20/2021 2:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > > Yes, there are variations that that can do some randomness, but I am not > > sure how much things like the Halting Theorem apply, after all, if a > > machine can act differently on different runs, can you really try to > > predict what it will do? > > > For some stupid reason I always thought that the halting problem extends > to all problems, and all programs. If the program is random in nature, > and can halt from time to time, or never halt at all, well... This so > called "decider" of the halting problem would be able to determine its > ultimate fate, so to speak... > We could implement randomness by providing the Turing machine with a set of random numbers for its tape. The set can't be infinite for the "Linz" proof to work, otherwise the copy loop never halts. But Turing machines can't contain random number generators. Any physical machine will of course have a slight chance of malfunctiing, introducing randomness in a sense. But the mathematical model excludes that possibility. Most computers are sufficiently close to Turing machines for Turing machine concepts to be extensible to them. But not always. "Eliza" can't really be analysed that way, for example. (It's a fake psychotherapist that works by recognising a few grammar words and then throwing the open class words back at you).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 26 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 24 25 [26] 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web