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 4 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 27 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 13:04 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] |
| Message-ID | <ttjLI.16247$6j.11972@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #37042 |
On 7/25/21 12:46 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 20:25:38 UTC+1, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 7/25/21 11:22 AM, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> I made my refutation of Linz a little more clear by changing all of the
>>> subscripts to be numeric. My refutation of Linz cannot be properly
>>> understood until after my refutation of simplified Linz / Strachey is
>>> first understood.
>>>
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation
>>>
>>>
>>> The key thing that must be understood is that [ H(P,P)==0 is always
>>> correct ] even though int main(){ P(P); } halts.
>>>
>> As Andre says, this last statement shows that either you you are
>> suffering from cognitive dissonance (and thus lack the ability to really
>> see what is true), or actively proclaiming something as true which you
>> know must be a lie (and thus are a liar).
>>
> We simplifyL inz H_Hat by removing the invert loop. Now, obviously, we
> can write a decider which categorises it correctly by just writing "return
> true". But that's not what we're after.
> Keep H as a "simulating halt decider". That is, it simulates its input,
> until it either the input halts, or it detects that the input has got trapped
> in a cycle. Now input P(P) {H(P, P)}.
> The simulator simulates itself. Now either its cycle detector detects
> the situation, or t doesn't. If it doesn't, H contexts pile up and the the
> machine never halts until it runs out of tape. If it does detect the cycle,
> it terminates the simulations and P(P) halts.
> So whatever H() decides, it has to get the answer wrong. I'm not quite sure
> where PO is getting confused. But it's probably the paradox - if H
> detects the cycle as infinite, it is finite, and vice versa.
>
I think that fundamentally, PO is confusing different H^s built from
different Hs. This was shown by some of his recent instance that P is
JUST the code of his subroutine P, and that this machine doesn't include
the H that it calls. This allows him to make arguements over varing Hs
and show that Ha can correctly predict that Pn(Pn) is a non-halting
computation (but he omits the descriptive subscripts).
He conveniently ignores that Hn(Pa,Pa) also gets the right Halting answer.
(a subscirpt is a decider that aborts this nested simulation and decides
non-halting, the n subscirpt is a decider that doesn't abort this nested
simulaton).
This goes back to his long term issue of always wanting to reuse symbols
for different meanings in different cases, and then want to bring
results from one case into another.
Fundamentally we actually get the following cases:
Pn(Pn) is non-halting.
Pa(Pa) is Halting.
Hn(Pn,Pn) never return, and thus fails to be a decider.
Hn(Pa,Pa) will correctly answer that Pa(Pa) is Halting.
Ha(Pn,Pn) will correctly answer that Pn(Pn) is non-halting.
Ha(Pa,Pa) will incorrectly answer that Pa(Pa) is non-halting.
This last case happens as Ha aborts the simulation before it sees the
difference between Pn and Pa.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 16:58 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] |
| Message-ID | <sdkqaq$i8u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37047 |
On 7/25/2021 2:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 7/25/21 12:46 PM, Malcolm McLean wrot <SNIP> > This goes back to his long term issue of always wanting to reuse symbols > for different meanings in different cases, and then want to bring > results from one case into another. A long time ago I read Godel's dissertation retypeset in the exact notation of the original. It was maddening because each and every little theorem, lemma, etc. started out completely reassigning the meanings of symbols for that result. It was the most difficult thing I ever tried to read. I finally found a cleaned up proof and was able to scan through it and catch the flavor. I'm curious whether PO ever saw the original and adopted the style to impress us all! -- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 20:38 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H(P,P)==0 is always correct ] |
| Message-ID | <87wnpechf4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37036 |
olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> writes:
> I made my refutation of Linz a little more clear by changing all of
> the subscripts to be numeric.
You don't even accept Linz's definition of a halt decider. You have
nothing to say about hating, much less Linz's proof.
You once said:
"Everyone has claimed that H on input pair (Ĥ, Ĥ) meeting the Linz
specs does not exist. I now have a fully encoded pair of Turing
Machines H / Ĥ proving them wrong."
Linz's specs:
q0 [M] w ⊦ x1 qy x2 if M(w) halts, and
q0 [M] w ⊦ y1 qn y2 if M(w) does not halt.
You have no such TMs. You never did. The last two and a half years
have just been about your finding a way to avoid saying "sorry, I was
wrong about that".
The first sign that you knew you were wrong came when you refused to say
what the correct answer was for H(<[H^], [H^]>) (my notation). I asked:
|| (1) What is the decision -- halts, or does not halt?
and you said
| Yes it is one of those.
Could you have been more evasive? If you weren't lying, tell us now.
Which state, qy or qn does your H halt in (the actual Turing machine,
not the pile of X86 code) when given <[H^],[H^]>? Is it, like your junk
x86 code, the reject state? And is H^([H^]) a finite computation like
your pile of junk x86 code version? You won't tell us, because never
had such a pair of TMs, but I doubt you'll admit that either.
Then the Long Walk Back started, and after more than two and half years
of junk postings we arrive at this absurd claim:
> H(P,P)==0 is always correct ... even though int main(){ P(P); } halts.
From two actual Turing machines that everyone said were impossible, to a
pile of x86 junk code that no one cares about because it gets the answer
explicitly wrong.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 20:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87r1fmcgta.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #37032 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> writes: > On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:14:20 UTC+1, Mike Terry wrote: >> >> I think this is all a bit like Malcolm suggesting that PO is raising >> "interesting ideas" that might be useful with more study, or that some >> basic idea of PO's is "really quite clever...". It is NOT. PO has no >> incling of those possibilities and really no interest in them. He is >> simply saying things he naively thinks are true, without any logical >> reasoning going on. No cleverness at all. He is not "performing a >> magic trick", where he will pull a rabit out of a hat - he genuinely >> believes he is refuting the Linz proof, no tricks. Pretending otherwise >> may be being nice to PO, making him feel better, but is ultimately >> unhelpful IMO. I'd say it seems like "dishonest niceness" to me. (But >> maybe Malcolm really thinks PO is producing worthwhile results, or is on >> the path to that, in which case it's just being "actually nice"!) >> > I've always been very clear that I haven't yet seen from PO anything that > constitutes a refutation of Linz. Unless I've misunderstood what you mean, that's an extraordinary thing to say. What do you mean by a "a refutation of Linz"? PO won't say, so you can't be using the term as he does. Do you mean a demonstration that a TM halt decider does exist (as PO sometimes claims)? Do you mean the production of a TM X such that X(<[X^][X^]> is correct about X^([X^]) (as PO originally clamed)? Or do you mean the finding of irreparable errors in the two proofs of the theorem in Linz? In all cases your "yet" is a very odd word to use. What concept of such a simple and well-established theorem do you have that using the word "yet" is reasonable in this context? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 13:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8978f969-8b53-4535-9bd3-e838818b9755n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #37043 |
On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 20:52:04 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:14:20 UTC+1, Mike Terry wrote: > >> > >> I think this is all a bit like Malcolm suggesting that PO is raising > >> "interesting ideas" that might be useful with more study, or that some > >> basic idea of PO's is "really quite clever...". It is NOT. PO has no > >> incling of those possibilities and really no interest in them. He is > >> simply saying things he naively thinks are true, without any logical > >> reasoning going on. No cleverness at all. He is not "performing a > >> magic trick", where he will pull a rabit out of a hat - he genuinely > >> believes he is refuting the Linz proof, no tricks. Pretending otherwise > >> may be being nice to PO, making him feel better, but is ultimately > >> unhelpful IMO. I'd say it seems like "dishonest niceness" to me. (But > >> maybe Malcolm really thinks PO is producing worthwhile results, or is on > >> the path to that, in which case it's just being "actually nice"!) > >> > > I've always been very clear that I haven't yet seen from PO anything that > > constitutes a refutation of Linz. > Unless I've misunderstood what you mean, that's an extraordinary thing > to say. What do you mean by a "a refutation of Linz"? PO won't say, so > you can't be using the term as he does. Do you mean a demonstration > that a TM halt decider does exist (as PO sometimes claims)? Do you mean > the production of a TM X such that X(<[X^][X^]> is correct about > X^([X^]) (as PO originally clamed)? Or do you mean the finding of > irreparable errors in the two proofs of the theorem in Linz? > What would you accept as proof that the Earth is flat? I had a very good teacher who used to pretend to be a flat earther. His case was that light didn't travel in straight lines. When you relax the requirement that light travels in straight lines, all of the simple proofs you read in geography textbooks become invalid, and as schoolboys we didn't have the intellectual equipment to refute him. But of course we knew that he was kidding. No one for a moment supposed seriously that the Earth wasn't round. All the things you have mentioned would be extraordinary, and all have been attempted by PO (he won't show the halt decider but he does show the execution traces, he claims that Linz's roof is based on a "pathological liar paradox"). I and plenty of others have pointed out why we don't accept that he truly has an extraordinary result, much less a refutation. Whilst on the face of it your question seems reasonable, I think really it's a poor basis on which to proceed. If there's an argument from PO that seems to make sense, and doesn't have an obvious hole in it, that's the time to start worrying about what criteria we'll apply to accept that Linz has been refuted. > > In all cases your "yet" is a very odd word to use. What concept of such > a simple and well-established theorem do you have that using the word > "yet" is reasonable in this context? > "Yet" is disingenuous.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 22:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox rather than contradiction ] |
| Message-ID | <dLudnbEJjIhIrGP9nZ2dnUU7-dPNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37053 |
On 7/25/2021 3:54 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 20:52:04 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:14:20 UTC+1, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think this is all a bit like Malcolm suggesting that PO is raising
>>>> "interesting ideas" that might be useful with more study, or that some
>>>> basic idea of PO's is "really quite clever...". It is NOT. PO has no
>>>> incling of those possibilities and really no interest in them. He is
>>>> simply saying things he naively thinks are true, without any logical
>>>> reasoning going on. No cleverness at all. He is not "performing a
>>>> magic trick", where he will pull a rabit out of a hat - he genuinely
>>>> believes he is refuting the Linz proof, no tricks. Pretending otherwise
>>>> may be being nice to PO, making him feel better, but is ultimately
>>>> unhelpful IMO. I'd say it seems like "dishonest niceness" to me. (But
>>>> maybe Malcolm really thinks PO is producing worthwhile results, or is on
>>>> the path to that, in which case it's just being "actually nice"!)
>>>>
>>> I've always been very clear that I haven't yet seen from PO anything that
>>> constitutes a refutation of Linz.
>> Unless I've misunderstood what you mean, that's an extraordinary thing
>> to say. What do you mean by a "a refutation of Linz"? PO won't say, so
>> you can't be using the term as he does. Do you mean a demonstration
>> that a TM halt decider does exist (as PO sometimes claims)? Do you mean
>> the production of a TM X such that X(<[X^][X^]> is correct about
>> X^([X^]) (as PO originally clamed)? Or do you mean the finding of
>> irreparable errors in the two proofs of the theorem in Linz?
>>
> What would you accept as proof that the Earth is flat? I had a very good
> teacher who used to pretend to be a flat earther. His case was that light
> didn't travel in straight lines. When you relax the requirement that light travels
> in straight lines, all of the simple proofs you read in geography textbooks
> become invalid, and as schoolboys we didn't have the intellectual equipment
> to refute him. But of course we knew that he was kidding. No one for a
> moment supposed seriously that the Earth wasn't round.
>
> All the things you have mentioned would be extraordinary, and all have been
> attempted by PO (he won't show the halt decider but he does show the
> execution traces, he claims that Linz's roof is based on a "pathological
> liar paradox"). I and plenty of others have pointed out why we don't accept
> that he truly has an extraordinary result, much less a refutation.
>
> Whilst on the face of it your question seems reasonable, I think really
> it's a poor basis on which to proceed. If there's an argument from PO
> that seems to make sense, and doesn't have an obvious hole in it, that's
> the time to start worrying about what criteria we'll apply to accept that
> Linz has been refuted.
I have established that H(P,P)==0 is the correct return value for the
input to H even though the P of int main(){ P(P); } does halt.
No one is willing to carefully examine the detailed steps that I have
provided that prove this, they all skip to the end and simply assume
that it must be incorrect because the P of int main(){ P(P); } does halt.
If they bothered to go through the steps of this proof they would see
the actual paradox rather than what superficially seems to be a
contradiction. I take this as direct dishonestly.
You ask: "What criteria we'll apply to accept that Linz has been refuted?"
The answer is that almost no one will accept any criteria because they
have no interest in me being right the only care about me being wrong.
Flibble, wij and you may be exceptions to this rule.
I have proved that there is a paradox rather than a contradiction. The
reason that there is a paradox is that self-contradictory input is
inherently erroneous in the same way that the liar paradox is simply
erroneous.
>>
>> In all cases your "yet" is a very odd word to use. What concept of such
>> a simple and well-established theorem do you have that using the word
>> "yet" is reasonable in this context?
>>
> "Yet" is disingenuous.
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 21:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox rather than contradiction ] |
| Message-ID | <e1rLI.28269$Nq7.4719@fx33.iad> |
| In reply to | #37062 |
On 7/25/21 8:53 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/25/2021 3:54 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 20:52:04 UTC+1, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.ar...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday, 25 July 2021 at 17:14:20 UTC+1, Mike Terry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think this is all a bit like Malcolm suggesting that PO is raising
>>>>> "interesting ideas" that might be useful with more study, or that some
>>>>> basic idea of PO's is "really quite clever...". It is NOT. PO has no
>>>>> incling of those possibilities and really no interest in them. He is
>>>>> simply saying things he naively thinks are true, without any logical
>>>>> reasoning going on. No cleverness at all. He is not "performing a
>>>>> magic trick", where he will pull a rabit out of a hat - he genuinely
>>>>> believes he is refuting the Linz proof, no tricks. Pretending
>>>>> otherwise
>>>>> may be being nice to PO, making him feel better, but is ultimately
>>>>> unhelpful IMO. I'd say it seems like "dishonest niceness" to me. (But
>>>>> maybe Malcolm really thinks PO is producing worthwhile results, or
>>>>> is on
>>>>> the path to that, in which case it's just being "actually nice"!)
>>>>>
>>>> I've always been very clear that I haven't yet seen from PO anything
>>>> that
>>>> constitutes a refutation of Linz.
>>> Unless I've misunderstood what you mean, that's an extraordinary thing
>>> to say. What do you mean by a "a refutation of Linz"? PO won't say, so
>>> you can't be using the term as he does. Do you mean a demonstration
>>> that a TM halt decider does exist (as PO sometimes claims)? Do you mean
>>> the production of a TM X such that X(<[X^][X^]> is correct about
>>> X^([X^]) (as PO originally clamed)? Or do you mean the finding of
>>> irreparable errors in the two proofs of the theorem in Linz?
>>>
>> What would you accept as proof that the Earth is flat? I had a very good
>> teacher who used to pretend to be a flat earther. His case was that light
>> didn't travel in straight lines. When you relax the requirement that
>> light travels
>> in straight lines, all of the simple proofs you read in geography
>> textbooks
>> become invalid, and as schoolboys we didn't have the intellectual
>> equipment
>> to refute him. But of course we knew that he was kidding. No one for a
>> moment supposed seriously that the Earth wasn't round.
>>
>> All the things you have mentioned would be extraordinary, and all have
>> been
>> attempted by PO (he won't show the halt decider but he does show the
>> execution traces, he claims that Linz's roof is based on a "pathological
>> liar paradox"). I and plenty of others have pointed out why we don't
>> accept
>> that he truly has an extraordinary result, much less a refutation.
>>
>> Whilst on the face of it your question seems reasonable, I think really
>> it's a poor basis on which to proceed. If there's an argument from PO
>> that seems to make sense, and doesn't have an obvious hole in it, that's
>> the time to start worrying about what criteria we'll apply to accept that
>> Linz has been refuted.
>
> I have established that H(P,P)==0 is the correct return value for the
> input to H even though the P of int main(){ P(P); } does halt.
No, you haven't. You just won't look at the arguemts about why you are
so wrong.
>
> No one is willing to carefully examine the detailed steps that I have
> provided that prove this, they all skip to the end and simply assume
> that it must be incorrect because the P of int main(){ P(P); } does halt.
Since that is the DEFINITION of what H is suppose to decide on, that
seems to be a reasonable thing to look at.
>
> If they bothered to go through the steps of this proof they would see
> the actual paradox rather than what superficially seems to be a
> contradiction. I take this as direct dishonestly.
You mean like you analyise the simulation based on the assumption that H
will NEVER abort its simulation, and then you have H abort that
simulation? THAT UNSOUND ARGUEMNT?
>
> You ask: "What criteria we'll apply to accept that Linz has been refuted?"
>
> The answer is that almost no one will accept any criteria because they
> have no interest in me being right the only care about me being wrong.
> Flibble, wij and you may be exceptions to this rule.
When you apply the critera of the problem you claim to be solving.
>
> I have proved that there is a paradox rather than a contradiction. The
> reason that there is a paradox is that self-contradictory input is
> inherently erroneous in the same way that the liar paradox is simply
> erroneous.
No, you have proved that you use UNSOUND logic.
You show that you do not understand what a Turing Machine is.
You insist on looking at the wrong version of H^ (which you want to call
P), that is built on the wrong H, because you seem to think that it
doesn't matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-25 23:09 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ paradox rather than contradiction ] |
| Message-ID | <sdlg2u$tth$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37062 |
On 2021-07-25 21:53, olcott wrote:
> I have established that H(P,P)==0 is the correct return value for the
> input to H even though the P of int main(){ P(P); } does halt.
The behaviour of int main(){ P(P); } is, *by definition*, the only
correct answer to H(P,P)
> No one is willing to carefully examine the detailed steps that I have
> provided that prove this, they all skip to the end and simply assume
> that it must be incorrect because the P of int main(){ P(P); } does halt.
>
> If they bothered to go through the steps of this proof they would see
> the actual paradox rather than what superficially seems to be a
> contradiction. I take this as direct dishonestly.
How exactly do you distinguish between a paradox and a contradiction?
André
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 09:20 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <g5Cdndhbg9ImWWP9nZ2dnUU7-S3NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37064 |
On 7/26/2021 12:09 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-07-25 21:53, olcott wrote:
>
>> I have established that H(P,P)==0 is the correct return value for the
>> input to H even though the P of int main(){ P(P); } does halt.
>
> The behaviour of int main(){ P(P); } is, *by definition*, the only
> correct answer to H(P,P)
>
The behavior of H(P,P) and P(P) varies only because of the erroneous
self-contradictory input.
That the input has the pathological-self-reference(Olcott 2004) error
can be discerned on the basis that H(P,P) != P(P). This refutes Rice.
>> No one is willing to carefully examine the detailed steps that I have
>> provided that prove this, they all skip to the end and simply assume
>> that it must be incorrect because the P of int main(){ P(P); } does halt.
>>
>> If they bothered to go through the steps of this proof they would see
>> the actual paradox rather than what superficially seems to be a
>> contradiction. I take this as direct dishonestly.
>
> How exactly do you distinguish between a paradox and a contradiction?
If H(P,P) is verified as correct and P(P) is verified as correct then
H(P,P) != P(P) is not a contradiction.
Because of the fact that No P ever halts unless H(P,P) aborts the
simulation of its input H(P,P) is more correct than P(P).
The error is not with H(P,P)==0 if all of the steps are analyzed no
error can be found because there is no error. That the input to H(P,P)
never halts is a verified fact. By not examining all of these steps when
repeatedly asked to do so really seems to prove that you must be dishonest.
>
> André
>
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 07:40 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <HPzLI.16434$6j.8011@fx04.iad> |
| In reply to | #37076 |
On 7/26/21 7:20 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 7/26/2021 12:09 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-07-25 21:53, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> I have established that H(P,P)==0 is the correct return value for the
>>> input to H even though the P of int main(){ P(P); } does halt.
>>
>> The behaviour of int main(){ P(P); } is, *by definition*, the only
>> correct answer to H(P,P)
>>
>
> The behavior of H(P,P) and P(P) varies only because of the erroneous
> self-contradictory input.
Translation: H(P,P) is wrong because P(P) was designed so that H
couldn't get it right. I is improper to create inputs that disagree with
my ideas, so I will just define that they are wrong, even if they do exist.
>
> That the input has the pathological-self-reference(Olcott 2004) error
> can be discerned on the basis that H(P,P) != P(P). This refutes Rice.
Translation: I don't like that this exsits, so I refuse to accept it,
and have published some drivel that makes a flawed argument to show why
my falsehood are correct. Everybody else is wrong. It is unfair that
people can use real logic to show that I am wrong, so any such logic
must be incorrect, as I have 'proven' (stomp feet and yells).
>
>>> No one is willing to carefully examine the detailed steps that I have
>>> provided that prove this, they all skip to the end and simply assume
>>> that it must be incorrect because the P of int main(){ P(P); } does
>>> halt.
>>>
>>> If they bothered to go through the steps of this proof they would see
>>> the actual paradox rather than what superficially seems to be a
>>> contradiction. I take this as direct dishonestly.
>>
>> How exactly do you distinguish between a paradox and a contradiction?
>
> If H(P,P) is verified as correct and P(P) is verified as correct then
> H(P,P) != P(P) is not a contradiction.
Translation: I will redefine the meaning of things so that what I
believe can be true, and refuse to accept tha this logic is full of
contradictions, because I will just redefine things so that it isn't
one, at least in my own twisted mind. If needed I will accept that 0 ==
1 if that is needed to help prove that I am correct.
>
> Because of the fact that No P ever halts unless H(P,P) aborts the
> simulation of its input H(P,P) is more correct than P(P).
Translation: I want to believe my own delusions of what is true that the
actual reality.
>
> The error is not with H(P,P)==0 if all of the steps are analyzed no
> error can be found because there is no error. That the input to H(P,P)
> never halts is a verified fact. By not examining all of these steps when
> repeatedly asked to do so really seems to prove that you must be dishonest.
Translation: I refuse to look at any of the arguments that I am wrong. I
refuse to accept that I am wrong, so everyone one else must be, even if
that means that I have to throw out the basics of logic.
>
>>
>> André
>>
>>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 10:09 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <sdmmo7$72r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37076 |
On 2021-07-26 08:20, olcott wrote:
> On 7/26/2021 12:09 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-07-25 21:53, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> I have established that H(P,P)==0 is the correct return value for the
>>> input to H even though the P of int main(){ P(P); } does halt.
>>
>> The behaviour of int main(){ P(P); } is, *by definition*, the only
>> correct answer to H(P,P)
>>
>
> The behavior of H(P,P) and P(P) varies only because of the erroneous
> self-contradictory input.
>
> That the input has the pathological-self-reference(Olcott 2004) error
> can be discerned on the basis that H(P,P) != P(P). This refutes Rice.
>
>>> No one is willing to carefully examine the detailed steps that I have
>>> provided that prove this, they all skip to the end and simply assume
>>> that it must be incorrect because the P of int main(){ P(P); } does
>>> halt.
>>>
>>> If they bothered to go through the steps of this proof they would see
>>> the actual paradox rather than what superficially seems to be a
>>> contradiction. I take this as direct dishonestly.
>>
>> How exactly do you distinguish between a paradox and a contradiction?
>
> If H(P,P) is verified as correct and P(P) is verified as correct then
> H(P,P) != P(P) is not a contradiction.
But H(P, P) *isn't* verified as correct. H(P, P) is required by the
definition of the halting problem accept P(P) if and only if P(P), when
run as an independent computation halts. The *only* correct answer to
the question 'does P(P) halt' is the one that corresponds to the
*actual* behaviour of P(P).
> Because of the fact that No P ever halts unless H(P,P) aborts the
> simulation of its input H(P,P) is more correct than P(P).
You really need to reread what you've written above and think carefully
about it.
You're claiming that an answer which does *not* correspond to the actual
answer to the question is somehow 'more correct' than the one which does
correspond to the actual answer to the question.
That's what I would call a 'pathological claim'.
André
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 11:41 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <_7OdnVI71OcgeGP9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37088 |
On 7/26/2021 11:09 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-07-26 08:20, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/26/2021 12:09 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>>> On 2021-07-25 21:53, olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have established that H(P,P)==0 is the correct return value for
>>>> the input to H even though the P of int main(){ P(P); } does halt.
>>>
>>> The behaviour of int main(){ P(P); } is, *by definition*, the only
>>> correct answer to H(P,P)
>>>
>>
>> The behavior of H(P,P) and P(P) varies only because of the erroneous
>> self-contradictory input.
>>
>> That the input has the pathological-self-reference(Olcott 2004) error
>> can be discerned on the basis that H(P,P) != P(P). This refutes Rice.
>>
>>>> No one is willing to carefully examine the detailed steps that I
>>>> have provided that prove this, they all skip to the end and simply
>>>> assume that it must be incorrect because the P of int main(){ P(P);
>>>> } does halt.
>>>>
>>>> If they bothered to go through the steps of this proof they would
>>>> see the actual paradox rather than what superficially seems to be a
>>>> contradiction. I take this as direct dishonestly.
>>>
>>> How exactly do you distinguish between a paradox and a contradiction?
>>
>> If H(P,P) is verified as correct and P(P) is verified as correct then
>> H(P,P) != P(P) is not a contradiction.
>
> But H(P, P) *isn't* verified as correct.
While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it cannot
possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving that this
input never halts.
Anyone bothering to carefully examine these things must necessarily
conclude that the pure simulation of the input to H(P,P) cannot possibly
reach its final state. Anyone not bothering to carefully examine these
things is a liar and a cheat.
_P()
[00000c36](01) 55 push ebp
[00000c37](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000c39](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] // 2nd Param
[00000c3c](01) 50 push eax
[00000c3d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] // 1st Param
[00000c40](01) 51 push ecx
[00000c41](05) e820fdffff call 00000966 // call H(P,P)
[00000c46](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000c49](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00000c4b](02) 7402 jz 00000c4f
[00000c4d](02) ebfe jmp 00000c4d
[00000c4f](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000c50](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [00000c50]
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:c36
[00000c36][002117ca][002117ce] 55 push ebp
[00000c37][002117ca][002117ce] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000c39][002117ca][002117ce] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000c3c][002117c6][00000c36] 50 push eax // push P
[00000c3d][002117c6][00000c36] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000c40][002117c2][00000c36] 51 push ecx // push P
[00000c41][002117be][00000c46] e820fdffff call 00000966 // call H(P,P)
[00000c36][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 55 push ebp
[00000c37][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000c39][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000c3c][0025c1ee][00000c36] 50 push eax // push P
[00000c3d][0025c1ee][00000c36] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000c40][0025c1ea][00000c36] 51 push ecx // push P
[00000c41][0025c1e6][00000c46] e820fdffff call 00000966 // call H(P,P)
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
> H(P, P) is required by the
> definition of the halting problem accept P(P) if and only if P(P), when
> run as an independent computation halts. The *only* correct answer to
> the question 'does P(P) halt' is the one that corresponds to the
> *actual* behaviour of P(P).
>
>> Because of the fact that No P ever halts unless H(P,P) aborts the
>> simulation of its input H(P,P) is more correct than P(P).
>
> You really need to reread what you've written above and think carefully
> about it.
>
> You're claiming that an answer which does *not* correspond to the actual
> answer to the question is somehow 'more correct' than the one which does
> correspond to the actual answer to the question.
>
> That's what I would call a 'pathological claim'.
>
> André
>
P(P) != H(P,P) recognizes the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004)
error thus refuting Rice's theorem.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 11:00 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <sdmpob$rnp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37089 |
On 2021-07-26 10:41, olcott wrote: > On 7/26/2021 11:09 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> But H(P, P) *isn't* verified as correct. > > While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it cannot > possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving that this > input never halts. But P(P) is defined as including a copy of H which *isn't* run in 'pure simulation mode'. You can set the *outermost* H to run in 'pure simulator mode' if you want. But you can't change what occurs in P's copy of H (or put it in some other 'mode') or you are no longer evaluating P but something else. >>> Because of the fact that No P ever halts unless H(P,P) aborts the >>> simulation of its input H(P,P) is more correct than P(P). >> >> You really need to reread what you've written above and think >> carefully about it. >> >> You're claiming that an answer which does *not* correspond to the >> actual answer to the question is somehow 'more correct' than the one >> which does correspond to the actual answer to the question. >> >> That's what I would call a 'pathological claim'. >> >> André >> > > P(P) != H(P,P) recognizes the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) > error thus refuting Rice's theorem. There is no 'pathological self-reference error'. Nothing in Linz's proof involves something which refers at all, let alone something which refers to itself. The only pathological error here is your claim that an incorrect answer is 'more correct' than a correct answer. -- To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 14:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <1ZidnRe_AtgLkmL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37090 |
On 7/26/2021 12:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: > On 2021-07-26 10:41, olcott wrote: >> On 7/26/2021 11:09 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: > >>> But H(P, P) *isn't* verified as correct. >> >> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >> that this input never halts. > > But P(P) is defined as including a copy of H which *isn't* run in 'pure > simulation mode'. > Because it is common knowledge that in any scientific investigation when we examine the effect of an independent variable[1] on a dependent variable[2] that any back-channel communication from the dependent variable[2] to the independent variable[1] corrupts the analysis. [1] The behavior of P [2] The halt status evaluation by H The way to correct for this when an input to the halt decider was intentionally defined to corrupt this process is to examine the behavior of the input in pure simulation mode expressly disallowing any corrupting back-channel communication from H to P. > You can set the *outermost* H to run in 'pure simulator mode' if you > want. But you can't change what occurs in P's copy of H (or put it in > some other 'mode') or you are no longer evaluating P but something else. > >>>> Because of the fact that No P ever halts unless H(P,P) aborts the >>>> simulation of its input H(P,P) is more correct than P(P). >>> >>> You really need to reread what you've written above and think >>> carefully about it. >>> >>> You're claiming that an answer which does *not* correspond to the >>> actual answer to the question is somehow 'more correct' than the one >>> which does correspond to the actual answer to the question. >>> >>> That's what I would call a 'pathological claim'. >>> >>> André >>> >> >> P(P) != H(P,P) recognizes the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) >> error thus refuting Rice's theorem. > > There is no 'pathological self-reference error'. Nothing in Linz's proof > involves something which refers at all, let alone something which refers > to itself. > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation In the last page of the Linz proof provided in my paper above Linz does apply Ĥ to its own machine decription. Why lie? > The only pathological error here is your claim that an incorrect answer > is 'more correct' than a correct answer. > > -- Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 15:29 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <nHGLI.26697$7H7.17181@fx42.iad> |
| In reply to | #37097 |
On 7/26/21 12:40 PM, olcott wrote: > On 7/26/2021 12:00 PM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> On 2021-07-26 10:41, olcott wrote: >>> On 7/26/2021 11:09 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: >> >>>> But H(P, P) *isn't* verified as correct. >>> >>> While the input to H(P,P) is simulated in pure simulation mode it >>> cannot possibly ever reach a final state thus conclusively proving >>> that this input never halts. >> >> But P(P) is defined as including a copy of H which *isn't* run in >> 'pure simulation mode'. >> > > Because it is common knowledge that in any scientific investigation when > we examine the effect of an independent variable[1] on a dependent > variable[2] that any back-channel communication from the dependent > variable[2] to the independent variable[1] corrupts the analysis. > > [1] The behavior of P > [2] The halt status evaluation by H But the INDEPENDENT variable is H, and the DEPENDENT variable is H^ (aks P) and its behavior. Note H^ is EXPLICITLY dependent on H, to try and call it an 'independent variable' is a categorical error. When studing something, it is very important to get your variables right. > > The way to correct for this when an input to the halt decider was > intentionally defined to corrupt this process is to examine the behavior > of the input in pure simulation mode expressly disallowing any > corrupting back-channel communication from H to P. But P is EXPLICITLY a function of H, treating P as the independent variable is an error. > >> You can set the *outermost* H to run in 'pure simulator mode' if you >> want. But you can't change what occurs in P's copy of H (or put it in >> some other 'mode') or you are no longer evaluating P but something else. >> >>>>> Because of the fact that No P ever halts unless H(P,P) aborts the >>>>> simulation of its input H(P,P) is more correct than P(P). >>>> >>>> You really need to reread what you've written above and think >>>> carefully about it. >>>> >>>> You're claiming that an answer which does *not* correspond to the >>>> actual answer to the question is somehow 'more correct' than the one >>>> which does correspond to the actual answer to the question. >>>> >>>> That's what I would call a 'pathological claim'. >>>> >>>> André >>>> >>> >>> P(P) != H(P,P) recognizes the pathological self-reference(Olcott >>> 2004) error thus refuting Rice's theorem. >> >> There is no 'pathological self-reference error'. Nothing in Linz's >> proof involves something which refers at all, let alone something >> which refers to itself. >> > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation > > > In the last page of the Linz proof provided in my paper above Linz does > apply Ĥ to its own machine decription. Why lie? H^ is given a copy of its representation. This is NOT self reference, H is defined to be able to accept ANY machine input, and thus so is H^, so H^ is NOT built with self reference. It is only a particular instance where we give it a COPY of its representation. This is NOT self-reference like you "Thist statement is false" statement which EXPLICITLY references itself.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 11:16 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <sdmqm4$2hr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37089 |
On 7/26/2021 10:41 AM, olcott wrote: > On 7/26/2021 11:09 AM, André G. Isaak wrote: <SNIP> >> You're claiming that an answer which does *not* correspond to the >> actual answer to the question is somehow 'more correct' than the one >> which does correspond to the actual answer to the question. >> >> That's what I would call a 'pathological claim'. >> >> André >> > > P(P) != H(P,P) recognizes the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004) > error thus refuting Rice's theorem. Reread the above and note how polite and nurturing Andre has been. And yet you reject his simple, near trivial point. Of course he is correct. You should apologize to him, not make silly arguments. oh yes, how was Andres so polite to you? Well he called it a "pathological claim"; a "pathological and irrational claimer" is much nearer the mark others would say. And what do you know about Rice? Since you likely can't boil water without supervision to keep you from harm, you couldn't prepare rice. I know it's a silly play on words but it's hard to believe that you can function in the real world with such a disoriented mind. -- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 13:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <ZNCdndMEKogNmGL9nZ2dnUU7-KvNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37092 |
On 7/26/2021 12:16 PM, Jeff Barnett wrote:
> On 7/26/2021 10:41 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 7/26/2021 11:09 AM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>> You're claiming that an answer which does *not* correspond to the
>>> actual answer to the question is somehow 'more correct' than the one
>>> which does correspond to the actual answer to the question.
>>>
>>> That's what I would call a 'pathological claim'.
>>>
>>> André
>>>
>>
>> P(P) != H(P,P) recognizes the pathological self-reference(Olcott 2004)
>> error thus refuting Rice's theorem.
>
> Reread the above and note how polite and nurturing Andre has been. And
> yet you reject his simple, near trivial point. Of course he is correct.
> You should apologize to him, not make silly arguments.
>
> oh yes, how was Andres so polite to you? Well he called it a
> "pathological claim"; a "pathological and irrational claimer" is much
> nearer the mark others would say.
>
> And what do you know about Rice? Since you likely can't boil water
> without supervision to keep you from harm, you couldn't prepare rice. I
> know it's a silly play on words but it's hard to believe that you can
> function in the real world with such a disoriented mind.
The HP has the same self-contradictory pattern as the Liar Paradox.
"This sentence is not true." is indeed not true just
like the P of int main() { P(P); } definitely reaches its halting state.
It is a mistake to take the fact that "This sentence is not true" is not
true as an indication that it is true.
In the exact same way it is a mistake to take the fact that the P of int
main() { P(P); } definitely reaches its halting state as an indication
that it is a halting computation.
_P()
[00000c36](01) 55 push ebp
[00000c37](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000c39](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] // 2nd Param
[00000c3c](01) 50 push eax
[00000c3d](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] // 1st Param
[00000c40](01) 51 push ecx
[00000c41](05) e820fdffff call 00000966 // call H(P,P)
[00000c46](03) 83c408 add esp,+08
[00000c49](02) 85c0 test eax,eax
[00000c4b](02) 7402 jz 00000c4f
[00000c4d](02) ebfe jmp 00000c4d
[00000c4f](01) 5d pop ebp
[00000c50](01) c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0027) [00000c50]
machine stack stack machine assembly
address address data code language
======== ======== ======== ========= =============
Begin Local Halt Decider Simulation at Machine Address:c36
[00000c36][002117ca][002117ce] 55 push ebp
[00000c37][002117ca][002117ce] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000c39][002117ca][002117ce] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000c3c][002117c6][00000c36] 50 push eax // push P
[00000c3d][002117c6][00000c36] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000c40][002117c2][00000c36] 51 push ecx // push P
[00000c41][002117be][00000c46] e820fdffff call 00000966 // call H(P,P)
[00000c36][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 55 push ebp
[00000c37][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00000c39][0025c1f2][0025c1f6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00000c3c][0025c1ee][00000c36] 50 push eax // push P
[00000c3d][0025c1ee][00000c36] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00000c40][0025c1ea][00000c36] 51 push ecx // push P
[00000c41][0025c1e6][00000c46] e820fdffff call 00000966 // call H(P,P)
Local Halt Decider: Infinite Recursion Detected Simulation Stopped
It is very easy to see that the pure simulation of the input to H(P,P)
cannot possibly ever reach its final state by the fact that there are no
conditional instructions that can possibly break out of the above
infinite recursion.
It looks like people greatly prefer to be God damned liars on this issue.
I would hope for their sake that the following verse is not literally
true. If it was up to me they would simply be forgiven rather than
condemned to Hell (the literal meaning of: "God damned").
Revelation 21:8 (KJV)
...all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire
and brimstone: which is the second death.
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 13:55 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <sdn40f$5ea$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37096 |
On 2021-07-26 12:57, olcott wrote:
> In the exact same way it is a mistake to take the fact that the P of int
> main() { P(P); } definitely reaches its halting state as an indication
> that it is a halting computation.
You seem to have a serious difficulty processing definitions.
The *definition* of a halting computation is a computation which reaches
one of its final states in a finite number of steps. This refers only to
the *actual* computation.
This definition exhaustively partitions the set of computations into two
mutually-exclusive groups. If we observe that a computation such as P(P)
reaches a final state in a finite number of steps, it goes in the
halting group. Otherwise, it goes into the non-halting group.
The definition is clear and unambiguous.
It does not mention anything about simulators or aborted simulations.
It makes no exceptions for 'pathological' inputs.
It doesn't care *how* they end up in their final state. That is, it
doesn't say "except if the only reason it halted was become some
otherwise infinite chain of simulations was aborted".
The *only* thing it cares about is whether the computation ends up in a
final state after a finite number of steps.
Once we have observed that P(P) *does* reach a final state in a finite
number of steps, we put it in the 'halting' group and we are done.
At this point, there are absolutely no additional considerations which
can have any relevance whatsoever. No arguments, or traces, or claims
about 'pathological' anything will make a difference to the fact that it
has been placed in the halting group and thus *cannot* be a non-halting
computation.
The *only* possible way you can claim that H(P, P)==0 is if you are
using an entirely different definition of 'halting' from the rest of the
world, in which case your argument has no bearing on the halting problem
since that problem uses the standard definition of halting. An
Olcott-Halting Decider is *not* a Halting Decider.
André
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 15:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <iYqdnZGWc7_7gWL9nZ2dnUU7-UXNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #37099 |
On 7/26/2021 2:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
> On 2021-07-26 12:57, olcott wrote:
>
>> In the exact same way it is a mistake to take the fact that the P of
>> int main() { P(P); } definitely reaches its halting state as an
>> indication that it is a halting computation.
>
> You seem to have a serious difficulty processing definitions.
>
> The *definition* of a halting computation is a computation which reaches
> one of its final states in a finite number of steps. This refers only to
> the *actual* computation.
>
> This definition exhaustively partitions the set of computations into two
> mutually-exclusive groups. If we observe that a computation such as P(P)
> reaches a final state in a finite number of steps, it goes in the
> halting group. Otherwise, it goes into the non-halting group.
>
> The definition is clear and unambiguous.
>
> It does not mention anything about simulators or aborted simulations.
>
> It makes no exceptions for 'pathological' inputs.
>
> It doesn't care *how* they end up in their final state. That is, it
> doesn't say "except if the only reason it halted was become some
> otherwise infinite chain of simulations was aborted".
>
> The *only* thing it cares about is whether the computation ends up in a
> final state after a finite number of steps.
>
> Once we have observed that P(P) *does* reach a final state in a finite
> number of steps, we put it in the 'halting' group and we are done.
>
> At this point, there are absolutely no additional considerations which
> can have any relevance whatsoever. No arguments, or traces, or claims
> about 'pathological' anything will make a difference to the fact that it
> has been placed in the halting group and thus *cannot* be a non-halting
> computation.
>
> The *only* possible way you can claim that H(P, P)==0 is if you are
> using an entirely different definition of 'halting' from the rest of the
> world,
A self-contradictory inputs such as the last page of the Linz proof
where the Linz Ĥ is applied to its own TM description must be handled
differently than inputs that are not self-contradictory.
You can say that when Ĥ is applied to its own TM description that it is
not a case of a TM being applied to its own TM description (an obvious
lie) or you can admit that this is a case of self-reference.
Being able to simply recognize that this input is self-contradictory
refutes Rice's Theorem. If the halt decider returned 2 for invalid input
this refutes Rices Theorem.
// Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
// Strachey(1965) CPL translated to C
void P(u32 x)
{
if (H(x, x))
HERE: goto HERE;
}
You can also say that when the input to H does the opposite of whatever
that halt decider decides that it is not doing the opposite of whatever
that halt decider decides. This would be an obvious lie.
Or you can admit that when the input does the opposite of whatever the
halt decider decides that it is contradicting the halt decider.
> in which case your argument has no bearing on the halting problem
> since that problem uses the standard definition of halting. An
> Olcott-Halting Decider is *not* a Halting Decider.
>
> André
>
--
Copyright 2021 Pete Olcott
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre
minds." Einstein
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-07-26 14:53 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: Black box halt decider is NOT a partial decider [ H refutes Rice's Theorem ] |
| Message-ID | <sdn7bo$sjr$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #37101 |
On 2021-07-26 14:34, olcott wrote:
> On 7/26/2021 2:55 PM, André G. Isaak wrote:
>> On 2021-07-26 12:57, olcott wrote:
>>
>>> In the exact same way it is a mistake to take the fact that the P of
>>> int main() { P(P); } definitely reaches its halting state as an
>>> indication that it is a halting computation.
>>
>> You seem to have a serious difficulty processing definitions.
>>
>> The *definition* of a halting computation is a computation which
>> reaches one of its final states in a finite number of steps. This
>> refers only to the *actual* computation.
>>
>> This definition exhaustively partitions the set of computations into
>> two mutually-exclusive groups. If we observe that a computation such
>> as P(P) reaches a final state in a finite number of steps, it goes in
>> the halting group. Otherwise, it goes into the non-halting group.
>>
>> The definition is clear and unambiguous.
>>
>> It does not mention anything about simulators or aborted simulations.
>>
>> It makes no exceptions for 'pathological' inputs.
>>
>> It doesn't care *how* they end up in their final state. That is, it
>> doesn't say "except if the only reason it halted was become some
>> otherwise infinite chain of simulations was aborted".
>>
>> The *only* thing it cares about is whether the computation ends up in
>> a final state after a finite number of steps.
>>
>> Once we have observed that P(P) *does* reach a final state in a finite
>> number of steps, we put it in the 'halting' group and we are done.
>>
>> At this point, there are absolutely no additional considerations which
>> can have any relevance whatsoever. No arguments, or traces, or claims
>> about 'pathological' anything will make a difference to the fact that
>> it has been placed in the halting group and thus *cannot* be a
>> non-halting computation.
>>
>> The *only* possible way you can claim that H(P, P)==0 is if you are
>> using an entirely different definition of 'halting' from the rest of
>> the world,
>
> A self-contradictory inputs such as the last page of the Linz proof
> where the Linz Ĥ is applied to its own TM description must be handled
> differently than inputs that are not self-contradictory.
Where in the definition of halting do you find anything which supports this?
As I said above, once you've determined that P(P) reaches its final
state *absolutely nothing* else is relevant. It is a halting
computation. Nothing you right below alters this.
> You can say that when Ĥ is applied to its own TM description that it is
> not a case of a TM being applied to its own TM description (an obvious
> lie) or you can admit that this is a case of self-reference.
When you make a copy of something, there is no 'reference' at all. If I
take some piece of code and make a copy of it, neither copy refers to
the other.
If a TM expects a description of a computation on the tape, you don't
place the TM itself on the tape. Just because you give TM X a
description of TM X does not make it 'self-referential'.
And whenever any TM which takes a TM description as an input claims to
be 'universal', that means it must be able handle *every* TM
description, including one that happens to be of itself.
> Being able to simply recognize that this input is self-contradictory
> refutes Rice's Theorem. If the halt decider returned 2 for invalid input
> this refutes Rices Theorem.
>
> // Simplified Linz Ĥ (Linz:1990:319)
> // Strachey(1965) CPL translated to C
> void P(u32 x)
> {
> if (H(x, x))
> HERE: goto HERE;
> }
>
> You can also say that when the input to H does the opposite of whatever
> that halt decider decides that it is not doing the opposite of whatever
> that halt decider decides. This would be an obvious lie.
>
> Or you can admit that when the input does the opposite of whatever the
> halt decider decides that it is contradicting the halt decider.
Reread the definition of halting. It makes no mention of 'halt deciders'
whatsoever. Computations are paritioned into halting and non-halting
based solely on the behaviour of the computation itself independent of
any putative halt decider.
Since the halting status of a computation is independent of any
particular halt-decider, claiming that there is something wrong with
this 'input' is meaningless. Its not an input to anything. It is a
computation.
You can pass a *description* of P(P) to some turing machine, in which
case a contradiction arises with P(P) *only* if you pass a description
of it to a *very particular* halt decider (the one from which it is
derived).
But the question 'does P(P) halt' is answerable without mentioning *any*
halt decider.
The question is 'does this computation halt'. Not 'does this computation
halt relative to decider X'.
André
--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail
service.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web