Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #103826 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-04-17 21:34 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-04-18 18:33 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 263 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-17 21:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-17 23:13 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 09:50 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 18:31 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 20:11 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 21:58 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 21:25 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 22:50 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 22:28 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 07:09 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:18 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 18:41 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 11:37 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-20 12:52 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 09:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 13:05 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 13:11 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-22 11:26 +0300
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-22 09:03 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-22 18:54 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 09:44 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-23 21:47 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 09:54 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 10:28 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 13:40 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 15:01 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 13:07 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 12:15 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 11:19 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 13:58 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 12:16 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 09:38 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Mendelson-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 08:36 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:52 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 18:51 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 13:04 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-19 19:20 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 01:05 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-20 08:56 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 10:20 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-20 11:39 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 10:26 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 12:52 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 09:44 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --Tarski Proof-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-22 09:10 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 10:33 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 19:01 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 19:17 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 20:49 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 19:57 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 22:00 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 21:16 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-24 23:38 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 22:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 22:56 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 21:02 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:15 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:50 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 14:09 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 12:19 -0400
D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 12:05 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 19:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 20:26 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 20:43 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 22:18 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 22:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-26 23:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 23:07 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 00:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 00:34 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 07:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 09:32 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 13:09 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 12:51 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 14:10 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 13:17 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 14:40 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 13:52 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 15:09 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 14:48 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 17:24 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 16:36 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 17:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 17:02 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 18:19 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 17:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 18:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 17:56 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 19:09 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 18:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 19:44 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 19:21 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 20:45 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:13 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 09:29 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:26 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-29 18:16 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 10:40 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-04-30 11:52 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-30 10:36 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-30 18:46 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-01 12:43 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-01 10:45 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-02 12:55 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-02 09:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-03 11:54 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 06:38 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-03 17:57 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-03 22:20 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 10:56 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 08:46 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 12:11 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 09:06 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 14:39 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 09:48 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 15:34 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 10:47 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 10:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 12:57 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-04 17:14 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 12:35 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 13:52 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 11:52 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 11:31 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 13:15 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 13:46 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 16:40 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 16:18 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 17:43 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 17:08 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 18:36 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 18:01 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 19:32 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 18:51 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 20:07 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 19:20 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 20:44 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 19:49 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 21:05 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 20:30 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 22:49 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 22:17 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-05 12:36 +0200
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:23 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:00 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:30 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 15:42 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 11:22 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:43 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 17:03 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:27 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 11:29 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:46 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:28 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:49 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 13:32 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-05 16:57 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:23 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:37 +0200
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2024-05-05 13:11 -0600
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:41 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:21 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:54 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 13:33 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 15:47 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 15:34 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:09 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 18:57 -0400
your system clock is still off olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:38 -0500
Re: your system clock is still off Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 21:05 -0400
Re: your system clock is still off olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:27 -0500
Re: your system clock is still off Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:53 -0400
Re: your system clock is still off olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:06 -0500
Re: your system clock is still off Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: your system clock is still off Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 18:50 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 07:10 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 10:13 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:50 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 19:01 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 11:51 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-05-05 09:33 +0100
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-05 10:02 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:51 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 12:54 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-05 17:28 +0000
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:47 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 08:36 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-04 12:11 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-04 09:12 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-04 11:58 -0400
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-05 12:39 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 09:41 -0500
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 19:15 +0300
Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-26 10:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:10 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 09:22 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 07:31 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 09:48 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 11:10 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 10:27 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 12:13 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 12:10 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-28 13:41 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 11:12 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 13:26 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 11:46 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 08:41 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-28 12:01 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 09:28 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-29 10:24 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-29 19:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:08 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:55 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-27 08:50 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --H(D,D)-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-27 13:21 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 00:57 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 07:34 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 09:51 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 13:23 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 14:04 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-19 16:36 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 13:07 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 16:05 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 20:41 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 21:40 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-20 20:39 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 00:47 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 07:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 07:17 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 10:16 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 08:53 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 12:41 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 11:37 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 11:42 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 14:34 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 17:19 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 16:38 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 19:52 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 19:22 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 21:54 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 23:35 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-22 07:35 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-23 10:39 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-23 21:47 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 19:00 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-21 19:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-21 22:02 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-24 23:33 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 07:32 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 09:09 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 12:04 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 10:45 -0700
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-25 13:47 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:51 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 --correct reasoning-- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-25 21:51 -0400
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-04-18 09:53 -0500
Re: Undecidability based on epistemological antinomies V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-04-18 18:33 -0400
Page 9 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 14 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 12:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- |
| Message-ID | <v18fb6$1vhpv$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104383 |
On 5/5/2024 11:57 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sun, 05 May 2024 11:29:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>
>> On 5/5/2024 10:42 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Sun, 05 May 2024 09:30:20 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>
>>>> On 5/5/2024 5:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>> Op 05.mei.2024 om 05:17 schreef olcott:
>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 9:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 9:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 7:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 3:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 9:39 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 5:56 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> [please snip your replies a little]
>>>
>>>>>>> Note, you CAN'T just "Stipulate" that a given machine IS a UTM
>>>>>>> except by defining that it works just like a UTM, which means, for
>>>>>>> one thing, it can NEVER abort its simulation, not even after
>>>>>>> determining that it will simulate this input forever.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> None-the-less a TM that correctly simulates N steps cannot be said
>>>>>> to have simulated those N steps incorrectly on the basis that it
>>>>>> could have simulated N+1 steps.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Those N steps were simulated correctly, but the fact that it stops
>>>>> after N steps make it an incorrect simulation.
>>>>
>>>> In other words a decider is wrong unless it never stops simulating an
>>>> non-halting input?
>>>
>>> Correct. Simulating here means producing the exact same behaviour. If
>>> it is correct up to a point, it might still make a mistake later.
>>> The only way to know is to keep simulating.
>>>
>>>
>> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
>> {
>> Infinite_Recursion(N);
>> }
>>
>> It is counter-factual that the above must be infinitely simulated to
>> correctly determine that it never halts.
>
> But then it is not „simulation”, rather (static) analysis.
>
As a matter of actual fact IT IS SIMULATION.
int main()
{
Output("Input_Halts = ", H(Infinite_Recursion, (ptr)5));
}
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | immibis <news@immibis.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 03:37 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- |
| Message-ID | <v1c0la$2skfl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104375 |
On 5/05/24 18:29, olcott wrote:
> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
> {
> Infinite_Recursion(N);
> }
>
> It is counter-factual that the above must be infinitely
> simulated to correctly determine that it never halts.
>
Any program that correctly determines non-termination is not a
simulating termination analyzer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 13:11 -0600 |
| Subject | Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- |
| Message-ID | <v18ll9$211id$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104373 |
On 5/5/2024 9:42 AM, joes wrote: Lots of snips here > > Correct. Simulating here means producing the exact same behaviour. > If it is correct up to a point, it might still make a mistake later. > The only way to know is to keep simulating. That reminds me of something I encountered in the early 1960s while working on Apollo. There was a workmate who wrote a really accurate decent speed numerical integration routine with variations (Adams Moulton (sp?) 6-point predictor corrector). He adopted it on request to help do long-term very accurate simulations of a gyro that was to be part of the guidance package. He essentially set up the integrator as the main routine of the simulation and used the predictor corrector to oscillate around an induced discontinuity, continually reducing its step size and backing up and going forward in a grad loop. Meanwhile the normal part of the integrator was capturing very accurate simulation data. This would go on for millions of steps in order to predict behavior and stability of the gyro. As a footnote: The integrator, in some parts, would examine some of the state variable values for relative size and order arithmetic computations accordingly. It did a lot of work to preserve low order bits and of course used double precision while executing on the IBM 7090 computers. There where many other "tricks" in the code and that integration package was used for a wide variety of Apollo applications. The fellow doing all of this was named Bill ? and was a key example of NASA trying to get real capability injected where it was important. The work was done at North American Aviation in Downy, CA - the prime Apollo contractor and integrator. -- Jeff Barnett
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 12:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- |
| Message-ID | <v18crf$5asr$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104367 |
On 5/5/24 10:30 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/5/2024 5:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Those N steps were simulated correctly, but the fact that it stops >> after N steps make it an incorrect simulation. > > In other words a decider is wrong unless it never > stops simulating an non-halting input? No, the decider is wrong if it gives the wrong answer. Now, if to determine the correct answer requires simulating more, then it needs to simulate more. If to determine the correct answer requires simulating to the end, it needs to simulate to the end, even if that takes forever. If it needs to simulate forever, but also needs to answer in finite time, then the method has just been shown not to meet the requirements. > >> If I order a diner in the restaurant and only the first few steps are >> done correctly (writing down the order, bringing the order to the >> kitchen), but then the operation is aborted, we cannot say that the >> order was processed correctly, even though any step executed was >> correct and nobody can point to a step before the abort that was >> wrong. It is the abort itself that makes it wrong. Similarly, a >> simulation that aborts is not a correct simulation. >> Olcott will probably insist that the waiter did a good job, even if I >> do not get my diner, because every step of the waiter before he >> aborted the order was correct. >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 12:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- |
| Message-ID | <v18f6o$1vhpv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104376 |
On 5/5/2024 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/5/24 10:30 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/5/2024 5:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > >>> Those N steps were simulated correctly, but the fact that it stops >>> after N steps make it an incorrect simulation. >> >> In other words a decider is wrong unless it never >> stops simulating an non-halting input? > > No, the decider is wrong if it gives the wrong answer. > > Now, if to determine the correct answer requires simulating more, then > it needs to simulate more. > > If to determine the correct answer requires simulating to the end, it > needs to simulate to the end, even if that takes forever. > > If it needs to simulate forever, but also needs to answer in finite > time, then the method has just been shown not to meet the requirements. > Bullshit. Try and show any detail that it incorrect with the conclusion of my new post: [Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H] >> >>> If I order a diner in the restaurant and only the first few steps are >>> done correctly (writing down the order, bringing the order to the >>> kitchen), but then the operation is aborted, we cannot say that the >>> order was processed correctly, even though any step executed was >>> correct and nobody can point to a step before the abort that was >>> wrong. It is the abort itself that makes it wrong. Similarly, a >>> simulation that aborts is not a correct simulation. >>> Olcott will probably insist that the waiter did a good job, even if I >>> do not get my diner, because every step of the waiter before he >>> aborted the order was correct. >>> >> > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 13:54 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- |
| Message-ID | <v18h4c$5asr$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104384 |
On 5/5/24 1:21 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/5/2024 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/5/24 10:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/5/2024 5:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> >>>> Those N steps were simulated correctly, but the fact that it stops >>>> after N steps make it an incorrect simulation. >>> >>> In other words a decider is wrong unless it never >>> stops simulating an non-halting input? >> >> No, the decider is wrong if it gives the wrong answer. >> >> Now, if to determine the correct answer requires simulating more, then >> it needs to simulate more. >> >> If to determine the correct answer requires simulating to the end, it >> needs to simulate to the end, even if that takes forever. >> >> If it needs to simulate forever, but also needs to answer in finite >> time, then the method has just been shown not to meet the requirements. >> > > Bullshit. Try and show any detail that it incorrect > with the conclusion of my new post: > [Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H] I did and you ignored it turning you into a LIAR by restating it. You even elsewhere said you were going to refute it, but never did. All you are doing is showing that you don't care about truth, but just want to push your lies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 13:33 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- |
| Message-ID | <v18jd6$20gbj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104396 |
I am only responding to my new post [Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H] On 5/5/2024 12:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/5/24 1:21 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/5/2024 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/5/24 10:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/5/2024 5:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> >>>>> Those N steps were simulated correctly, but the fact that it stops >>>>> after N steps make it an incorrect simulation. >>>> >>>> In other words a decider is wrong unless it never >>>> stops simulating an non-halting input? >>> >>> No, the decider is wrong if it gives the wrong answer. >>> >>> Now, if to determine the correct answer requires simulating more, >>> then it needs to simulate more. >>> >>> If to determine the correct answer requires simulating to the end, it >>> needs to simulate to the end, even if that takes forever. >>> >>> If it needs to simulate forever, but also needs to answer in finite >>> time, then the method has just been shown not to meet the requirements. >>> >> >> Bullshit. Try and show any detail that it incorrect >> with the conclusion of my new post: >> [Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H] > > I did and you ignored it turning you into a LIAR by restating it. > > You even elsewhere said you were going to refute it, but never did. > > All you are doing is showing that you don't care about truth, but just > want to push your lies. > > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 15:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- |
| Message-ID | <v18nnu$5asq$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104399 |
Since you haven't, I guess you are just admitting you don't have a response to my post. On 5/5/24 2:33 PM, olcott wrote: > I am only responding to my new post > [Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H] > > On 5/5/2024 12:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/5/24 1:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/5/2024 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/5/24 10:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/5/2024 5:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Those N steps were simulated correctly, but the fact that it stops >>>>>> after N steps make it an incorrect simulation. >>>>> >>>>> In other words a decider is wrong unless it never >>>>> stops simulating an non-halting input? >>>> >>>> No, the decider is wrong if it gives the wrong answer. >>>> >>>> Now, if to determine the correct answer requires simulating more, >>>> then it needs to simulate more. >>>> >>>> If to determine the correct answer requires simulating to the end, >>>> it needs to simulate to the end, even if that takes forever. >>>> >>>> If it needs to simulate forever, but also needs to answer in finite >>>> time, then the method has just been shown not to meet the requirements. >>>> >>> >>> Bullshit. Try and show any detail that it incorrect >>> with the conclusion of my new post: >>> [Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H] >> >> I did and you ignored it turning you into a LIAR by restating it. >> >> You even elsewhere said you were going to refute it, but never did. >> >> All you are doing is showing that you don't care about truth, but just >> want to push your lies. >> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 15:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- |
| Message-ID | <v18qfr$2255h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104406 |
On 5/5/2024 2:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > Since you haven't, I guess you are just admitting you don't have a > response to my post. > I have quite a few times now. > On 5/5/24 2:33 PM, olcott wrote: >> I am only responding to my new post >> [Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H] >> >> On 5/5/2024 12:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/5/24 1:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/5/2024 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/5/24 10:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/5/2024 5:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Those N steps were simulated correctly, but the fact that it >>>>>>> stops after N steps make it an incorrect simulation. >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words a decider is wrong unless it never >>>>>> stops simulating an non-halting input? >>>>> >>>>> No, the decider is wrong if it gives the wrong answer. >>>>> >>>>> Now, if to determine the correct answer requires simulating more, >>>>> then it needs to simulate more. >>>>> >>>>> If to determine the correct answer requires simulating to the end, >>>>> it needs to simulate to the end, even if that takes forever. >>>>> >>>>> If it needs to simulate forever, but also needs to answer in finite >>>>> time, then the method has just been shown not to meet the >>>>> requirements. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Bullshit. Try and show any detail that it incorrect >>>> with the conclusion of my new post: >>>> [Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H] >>> >>> I did and you ignored it turning you into a LIAR by restating it. >>> >>> You even elsewhere said you were going to refute it, but never did. >>> >>> All you are doing is showing that you don't care about truth, but >>> just want to push your lies. >>> >>> >> > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- |
| Message-ID | <v18sqe$5asr$11@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104407 |
On 5/5/24 4:34 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/5/2024 2:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> Since you haven't, I guess you are just admitting you don't have a >> response to my post. >> > > I have quite a few times now. They showed up after my message, and long after I made that post. > >> On 5/5/24 2:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>> I am only responding to my new post >>> [Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H] >>> >>> On 5/5/2024 12:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/5/24 1:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/5/2024 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/5/24 10:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/5/2024 5:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Those N steps were simulated correctly, but the fact that it >>>>>>>> stops after N steps make it an incorrect simulation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words a decider is wrong unless it never >>>>>>> stops simulating an non-halting input? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, the decider is wrong if it gives the wrong answer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, if to determine the correct answer requires simulating more, >>>>>> then it needs to simulate more. >>>>>> >>>>>> If to determine the correct answer requires simulating to the end, >>>>>> it needs to simulate to the end, even if that takes forever. >>>>>> >>>>>> If it needs to simulate forever, but also needs to answer in >>>>>> finite time, then the method has just been shown not to meet the >>>>>> requirements. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bullshit. Try and show any detail that it incorrect >>>>> with the conclusion of my new post: >>>>> [Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H] >>>> >>>> I did and you ignored it turning you into a LIAR by restating it. >>>> >>>> You even elsewhere said you were going to refute it, but never did. >>>> >>>> All you are doing is showing that you don't care about truth, but >>>> just want to push your lies. >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 16:09 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- |
| Message-ID | <v18si7$22jqb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104406 |
On 5/5/2024 2:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > Since you haven't, I guess you are just admitting you don't have a > response to my post. > *I have responded three times to that post* *I did this before you said that I never responded* On 5/5/2024 2:40 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/5/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: On 5/5/2024 2:10 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/5/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: On 5/5/2024 1:43 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/5/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/5/24 2:33 PM, olcott wrote: >> I am only responding to my new post >> [Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H] >> >> On 5/5/2024 12:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/5/24 1:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/5/2024 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/5/24 10:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/5/2024 5:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Those N steps were simulated correctly, but the fact that it >>>>>>> stops after N steps make it an incorrect simulation. >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words a decider is wrong unless it never >>>>>> stops simulating an non-halting input? >>>>> >>>>> No, the decider is wrong if it gives the wrong answer. >>>>> >>>>> Now, if to determine the correct answer requires simulating more, >>>>> then it needs to simulate more. >>>>> >>>>> If to determine the correct answer requires simulating to the end, >>>>> it needs to simulate to the end, even if that takes forever. >>>>> >>>>> If it needs to simulate forever, but also needs to answer in finite >>>>> time, then the method has just been shown not to meet the >>>>> requirements. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Bullshit. Try and show any detail that it incorrect >>>> with the conclusion of my new post: >>>> [Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H] >>> >>> I did and you ignored it turning you into a LIAR by restating it. >>> >>> You even elsewhere said you were going to refute it, but never did. >>> >>> All you are doing is showing that you don't care about truth, but >>> just want to push your lies. >>> >>> >> > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 18:57 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- |
| Message-ID | <v192sv$5asq$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104408 |
On 5/5/24 5:09 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/5/2024 2:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> Since you haven't, I guess you are just admitting you don't have a >> response to my post. >> > > *I have responded three times to that post* > *I did this before you said that I never responded* > > On 5/5/2024 2:40 PM, olcott wrote: > > On 5/5/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > On 5/5/2024 2:10 PM, olcott wrote: > > On 5/5/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > On 5/5/2024 1:43 PM, olcott wrote: > > On 5/5/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > Your posts handn't reached my computer when I looked. And, none of them addressed the issues, so still no response. Why do you keep on saying that NO H can simulate past the call to H(D,D) when I have shown two methods that allow that to happen. Your repeating the claim just shows you are a liar that doesn't actually care about the truth. > >> On 5/5/24 2:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>> I am only responding to my new post >>> [Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H] >>> >>> On 5/5/2024 12:54 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/5/24 1:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/5/2024 11:41 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/5/24 10:30 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/5/2024 5:36 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Those N steps were simulated correctly, but the fact that it >>>>>>>> stops after N steps make it an incorrect simulation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In other words a decider is wrong unless it never >>>>>>> stops simulating an non-halting input? >>>>>> >>>>>> No, the decider is wrong if it gives the wrong answer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Now, if to determine the correct answer requires simulating more, >>>>>> then it needs to simulate more. >>>>>> >>>>>> If to determine the correct answer requires simulating to the end, >>>>>> it needs to simulate to the end, even if that takes forever. >>>>>> >>>>>> If it needs to simulate forever, but also needs to answer in >>>>>> finite time, then the method has just been shown not to meet the >>>>>> requirements. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Bullshit. Try and show any detail that it incorrect >>>>> with the conclusion of my new post: >>>>> [Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H] >>>> >>>> I did and you ignored it turning you into a LIAR by restating it. >>>> >>>> You even elsewhere said you were going to refute it, but never did. >>>> >>>> All you are doing is showing that you don't care about truth, but >>>> just want to push your lies. >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 19:38 -0500 |
| Subject | your system clock is still off |
| Message-ID | <v198qd$253i2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104420 |
On 5/5/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: Your replies are coming before the posts that they respond to
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 21:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: your system clock is still off |
| Message-ID | <v19ade$5asr$16@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104422 |
On 5/5/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/5/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > Your replies are coming before the posts that they respond to Could the fact that I am in a different Time zone than you be a factor? Note, I wrote the message you are quoting at 6:57 PM my time, but that would be 5:57 PM your time. Now, if I WAS posting replies before they were sent, that would be a majr development.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 22:27 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: your system clock is still off |
| Message-ID | <v19imp$2bkma$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104432 |
On 5/5/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/5/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/5/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> Your replies are coming before the posts that they respond to > > > Could the fact that I am in a different Time zone than you be a factor? > > Note, I wrote the message you are quoting at 6:57 PM my time, but that > would be 5:57 PM your time. > > > Now, if I WAS posting replies before they were sent, that would be a > majr development. You are posting replies that are coming up before my much later posts. I think that your system clock may be off. USENET goes by universal time thus is not effected by timezones. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 23:53 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: your system clock is still off |
| Message-ID | <v19k7t$5asr$21@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104435 |
On 5/5/24 11:27 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/5/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/5/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/5/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> Your replies are coming before the posts that they respond to >> >> >> Could the fact that I am in a different Time zone than you be a factor? >> >> Note, I wrote the message you are quoting at 6:57 PM my time, but that >> would be 5:57 PM your time. >> >> >> Now, if I WAS posting replies before they were sent, that would be a >> majr development. > > You are posting replies that are coming up before my > much later posts. I think that your system clock may > be off. USENET goes by universal time thus is not > effected by timezones. > No, if your system is sorting messages wrong, then your system is just off. As I posted, the time stamps of those messages were all in the right order. Note, "Usenet" doesn't care about the Timestamp of the message, but your client might. Again, you don't understand how things work. In the message format, Time stamps are SUPPOSED to have a time zone connected to them, saying what time zone the stated time is from. It is not "just universal time". You may want to read the RFCs before you just prove even more how stupid you are.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 23:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: your system clock is still off |
| Message-ID | <v19l04$2c1v4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104443 |
On 5/5/2024 10:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/5/24 11:27 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/5/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/5/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/5/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> Your replies are coming before the posts that they respond to >>> >>> >>> Could the fact that I am in a different Time zone than you be a factor? >>> >>> Note, I wrote the message you are quoting at 6:57 PM my time, but >>> that would be 5:57 PM your time. >>> >>> >>> Now, if I WAS posting replies before they were sent, that would be a >>> majr development. >> >> You are posting replies that are coming up before my >> much later posts. I think that your system clock may >> be off. USENET goes by universal time thus is not >> effected by timezones. >> > > No, if your system is sorting messages wrong, then your system is just off. > That actual time/date stamp of your messages is making them come before several messages that I posted before you posted these messages. Don't just assume that I must be wrong look at your watch and check that with your system clock. > As I posted, the time stamps of those messages were all in the right order. > > Note, "Usenet" doesn't care about the Timestamp of the message, but your > client might. > > Again, you don't understand how things work. > It always used to be that messages that you posted after messages that I posted came at the bottom of the messages that I posted. > In the message format, Time stamps are SUPPOSED to have a time zone > connected to them, saying what time zone the stated time is from. > > It is not "just universal time". > > You may want to read the RFCs before you just prove even more how stupid > you are. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: your system clock is still off |
| Message-ID | <v1ablk$7eu1$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104446 |
On 5/6/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/5/2024 10:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/5/24 11:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/5/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/5/24 8:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/5/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> Your replies are coming before the posts that they respond to >>>> >>>> >>>> Could the fact that I am in a different Time zone than you be a factor? >>>> >>>> Note, I wrote the message you are quoting at 6:57 PM my time, but >>>> that would be 5:57 PM your time. >>>> >>>> >>>> Now, if I WAS posting replies before they were sent, that would be a >>>> majr development. >>> >>> You are posting replies that are coming up before my >>> much later posts. I think that your system clock may >>> be off. USENET goes by universal time thus is not >>> effected by timezones. >>> >> >> No, if your system is sorting messages wrong, then your system is just >> off. >> > > That actual time/date stamp of your messages is making > them come before several messages that I posted before > you posted these messages. > > Don't just assume that I must be wrong look at your watch > and check that with your system clock. I Have, Note, I POSTED the actual time stamps of a series that showed that they were in order, and that the time stamps were NOT just in "Universal Time" but Local Time. It seems that YOU are the one with a problem, but blame me. > >> As I posted, the time stamps of those messages were all in the right >> order. >> >> Note, "Usenet" doesn't care about the Timestamp of the message, but >> your client might. >> >> Again, you don't understand how things work. >> > > It always used to be that messages that you posted after messages > that I posted came at the bottom of the messages that I posted. My guess is that you did something to break your system. What are a couple of actual time stamps that how this error? No one else can tell why YOUR COMPUTER is getting things wrong, > >> In the message format, Time stamps are SUPPOSED to have a time zone >> connected to them, saying what time zone the stated time is from. >> >> It is not "just universal time". >> >> You may want to read the RFCs before you just prove even more how >> stupid you are. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 18:50 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: your system clock is still off |
| Message-ID | <v1au8n$2l785$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104422 |
On 2024-05-06 00:38:36 +0000, olcott said: > On 5/5/2024 5:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > Your replies are coming before the posts that they respond to I checked the headers of the above message. Richard Damon's clock seemts to differ 1 second from the servers's clock (or was read earlier). -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 07:10 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D simulated by H never halts no matter what H does V3 --- |
| Message-ID | <v17peu$2oq8$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104355 |
On 5/4/24 11:17 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/4/2024 9:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/4/24 9:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/4/2024 8:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/4/24 8:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/4/2024 7:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/4/24 8:20 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 7:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 7:51 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 6:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 7:01 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 5:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 6:08 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 4:43 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 5:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 3:40 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 2:46 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 12:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 10:52 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/24 10:48 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 9:39 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/4/2024 5:56 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are doing better than Alan on this though
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> he doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have a single clue about what execution traces
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are or how
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they work.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You should read "How to make friends and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> influence people" by Dale
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Carnegie. You may not care about the former,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but you sure are trying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the latter. Hint: telling nasty lies about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people is not effective.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The alternative of disparaging my work without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even looking at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is far worse because it meets the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://dictionary.findlaw.com/definition/reckless-disregard-of-the-truth.html
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> required for libel and defamation cases.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. There have got to be limits on what one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spends ones time on. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> None-the-less saying that I <am> wrong without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> looking at what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I said <is> defamatory. Saying that you believe
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that I am wrong
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on the basis that I do not seem to have credibility
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not defamatory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been maintaining false things over the years
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to such a degree that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it would be a waste of time suddenly to expect
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> brilliant insights from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you. For example, you insist that robustly proven
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematical theorems
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are false, and your "reasoning" hardly merits the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> word.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can D correctly simulated by H terminate normally?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr x, ptr x) // ptr is pointer to int
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr x)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(x, x);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 09 void main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Execution Trace
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Line 11: main() invokes H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> keeps repeating (unless aborted)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Line 03: simulated D(D) invokes simulated H(D,D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that simulates D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Simulation invariant:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yet saying that the above is false <is> defamatory
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because anyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with ordinary skill in the art of C programming can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it is true by verifying that the execution trace is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correct.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When you say it is false by either not verifying
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace is correct or not knowing what execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> traces are <is>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> defamatory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But it HAS been proven incorrect and YOU are the one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> disregarding the evidence.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess I could file defamatory claims against you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It may be the case that you did bury another rebuttal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your rhetoric and ad hominem attacks that were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vigorously attempting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to get away with the strawman deception change the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> subject "rebuttal".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But very close to my first part of the reply I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> indicated that there WAS a detailed description of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this at the end, and you replied to that mention,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> saying that since your statement was categorically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true it would be easy to refute, and then you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't do so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you post the time/date stamp I will carefully
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> examine it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Until you do that it seems safe to assume that it was only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the same ruse as this.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running unless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H. When
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > It means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > return 0;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > is always correct, because THAT H can not possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > the input to the end before it aborts it, and that H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every D NEVER simulated by H* (as shown above)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is definitely not *Every D simulated by H* (also shown
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> above)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So. I guess you ADHD made you forget what you were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> talking about and made yourself just into a liar.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YOU choosing to ignore it, just shows that you are not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really interested in an actual honest dialog.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I guess it doesn't matter to you what is actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> true, as you are going to just assume what you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A reasonable person cannot be reasonably expected to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wade through
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all of that especially when one of these "rebuttals"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interpreted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *D is simulated by H* to mean *D is NEVER simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But that isn't what distracted you in that message.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> *Every D simulated by H* that cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stop running unless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> aborted by H does specify non-terminating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to H. When
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Which is just meaningless gobbledygook by your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definitions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > It means that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > int H(ptr m, ptr d) {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > return 0;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > is always correct, because THAT H can not possible
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > the input to the end before it aborts it, and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > that that H can be, or it isn't THAT H.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> One shows a reckless-disregard-of-the-truth when they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "interpret"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *D is simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *D is NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But 0 steps is a number of steps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *I did not say any number of steps*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> *I HAVE SAID THIS AT LEAST 10,000 TIMES NOW*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> *Every D simulated by H* that cannot possibly stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> running unless
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> aborted by H does specify non-terminating behavior
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to H. When
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> H aborts this simulation that does not count as D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H* IS NOT *Any D NEVER simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H* IS NOT *Any D NEVER simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H* IS NOT *Any D NEVER simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every D simulated by H* IS NOT *Any D NEVER simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WITHOUT DEFINING EXACTLY WHAT "SIMULATED" means.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1) You have already acknowledged that you what it means
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by all the times that you did agree that D simulated by H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never reaches its own line 06 and halts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, D simulated by THIS H (and a very restricted family of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> related programs), as you have defined it, will not reach
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own line 06.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have said this many hundreds of times because this
>>>>>>>>>>>>> shell-game deception has been ridiculous
>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This happens as either said H abort their simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before the program gets there, or they create an H that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just never returns an answer to H(D,D) and thus fail to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a decider. These are two distinct parts of your "family"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of H that you like to talk about, that you need to be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bit imprecise about so you can try to mix them up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When N steps of D are simulated by the directly executed H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where N is 1 to 1,000,000 no simulated D every reaches past
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> When N steps of D are simulated by the directly executed H
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where N is 1 to 1,000,000 and H aborts its simulation all of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the nested simulations (if any) immediately totally stop
>>>>>>>>>>>>> running.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No simulated H ever returns any value to any simulated D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (2) What could simulated possibly mean besides the C
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> source-code
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of D being interpreted by a C interpreter or the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine-language
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of D being emulated by an x86 emulator?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ok, so why doesn't H do that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are not talking about my implemented H we are talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> After all, H doesn't actually simulate the call H
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instruction, which should do what the instruction does,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and enter H, or at least do the equivalent results of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling H(D,D) which is to return 0.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Typically, to simulate something means to determine what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it will do when it is actually done, but you like to claim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that H's simulation of the input doesn't need to match the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior of the program described to it, so clearly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you are not using simulate in the conventional meanings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have EXPLICITLY claimed that just becuase D(D) Halts,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't mean that H simulating the description of this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine can't be correct when it says it doesn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, it is clear that you somehow have rejected some of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> essential characteristic of what a "simulation" means, but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> refuse to actually define it. The likely cause is that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> know you CAN'T precisely define it, as you can't make
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weasle words to allow the illogical conclusion that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> make for the call to H being simulated, without makeing to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too obvious that something is very broken with your system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> All of the above is based on the false assumption that we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are talking about something other than this:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We are not talking about my implemented H we are talking about
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Every H/D pair (of the infinite set) where D is simulated
>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> But what do you mean be "Simulated".
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What in the definition of simulated allows a call to H that
>>>>>>>>>>>> will return 0 be simulated as "never returns"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You already understand that infinite recursion never returns.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right, trivially, since it isn't infinite if it does return.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So, a recursion call loop that has NOTHING in the loop that
>>>>>>>>>> can break it, becomes infinite.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You already understand that recursive simulation is
>>>>>>>>>>> isomorphic to infinite recursion so I can't see how you can
>>>>>>>>>>> say that you don't understand these things an be sincere.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But only for UNCONDITIONAL simulation, which H doesn't do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>> Infinite_Recursion(N);
>>>>>>>>> return;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK we are down to one single point at a time, when that point is
>>>>>>>>> divided into ten more points only one of them at a time we keep
>>>>>>>>> dividing them until your rebuttal looks like ridiculous nonsense
>>>>>>>>> to everyone including yourself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The ONLY point right now is that H(Infinite_Recursion, (ptr)5));
>>>>>>>>> is correct when it reports that Infinite_Recursion() never halts
>>>>>>>>> on the basis that Infinite_Recursion simulated by H never reaches
>>>>>>>>> its return statement.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, since Infinite_Recursion has a full unconditional loop back
>>>>>>>> to the original point, it will be a non-halting program and thus
>>>>>>>> no correct simulation of it can reach an end, because the
>>>>>>>> program it is simulating will never reach an end.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But H does not simulate it forever its simulation
>>>>>>> of Infinite_Recursion() is conditional. How it is
>>>>>>> that Infinite_Recursion() never halts when H stops
>>>>>>> simulating it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Becuase, as you don't seem to understand, the behavior of programs
>>>>>> is what they do as ideal mathematical objects on the ideal
>>>>>> mathematical machine they are concidered to be run on, NOT what
>>>>>> some simulation of them shows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah so you disagree with UTM's why do disagree with UTM's ?
>>>>> We must stay on this single point until it is fully addressed.
>>>>> If it is divided into subpoints the same thing goes for each subpoint.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you say I disagree with UTMs?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The quoted paragraph that I am referring to.
>>> If you disagree with yourself on this paragraph please elaborate.
>>
>> If H doesn't simulate it forever, it just isn't a UTM.
>>
>
> Whoa, Factorial of 5 must simulate forever?
WHy do you say that?
If you reach a final state, then you reached the final state and have
nothing more to do.
>
>> Note, you CAN'T just "Stipulate" that a given machine IS a UTM except
>> by defining that it works just like a UTM, which means, for one thing,
>> it can NEVER abort its simulation, not even after determining that it
>> will simulate this input forever.
>>
>
> None-the-less a TM that correctly simulates N steps
> cannot be said to have simulated those N steps incorrectly
> on the basis that it could have simulated N+1 steps.
Right, but neither does it say whether the machine it simulates halts in
more than N steps or runs forever.
>
>> You seem to have a trouble understanding that definitions actually
>> define what they define, and something that doesn't meet the
>> requirements can't be considered to be the thing it isn't.
>>
>
> I get into more nuances than the textbooks bother to discuss.
> That I get into more nuances than the textbooks bother to discuss
> does not make me wrong.
No, you just get it wrong because you don't know what the textbooks
actually say the rules of the theory are.
>
>> And, you H ISN'T a UTM if it aborts its simulation and answer.
>>
>>>
>>> I want you to specify all of the cases where a UTM simulation
>>> of an input is wrong.
>>>
>>
>> A UTM simulation of the input CAN'T be wrong, because if a simulator
>> differs from the actual behavior of the program described by the
>> input, the simulator is NOT a UTM.
>>
>> You don't seem to understand the meaning of the terms, or presume that
>> you can assume that something can be something it isn't.
>>
>
> I am trying to provide the basis for you to correctly extrapolate
> beyond what the textbooks say. Many people act as if all new ideas
> are always wrong because these new ideas do not precisely parrot
> existing ideas. There really is a correct extrapolation from existing
> ideas to new ideas and these new ideas are not inherently incorrect.
But then you could show how your answers actually do fit the
requirements of the actual theory, which you can't.
You can't actually extrapolate past the textbooks if you don't know what
the textbooks say.
The fact that you show a failure to understand so many basic terms shows
that you don't understand what the textbooks are saying.
You seem to be working off of a quick scan of the Cliff Notes of the
textbook and then guessing what it must have said.
>
>>>
>>>> I UTM is DEFINED that it produces the exact same result as the
>>>> direct execution of the machine. A machine is only a UTM if it does
>>>> that (and you can't stipulate that a machine is a UTM if it doesn't
>>>> do that)
>>>>
>>>> A program is a UTM *IF AND ONLY IF* the results it produces ALWAYS
>>>> exactly matches the behavior of the direct execution of the program
>>>> descirbed to it.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, BY DEFINITION, a UTM can not "abort" its simulation, as the
>>>> UTM of a non-halting program must be non-halting (and not just
>>>> saying "non-halting").
>>>>
>>>> A UTM doesn't "describe" what the input program does, it recreates
>>>> the behavior.
>>>>
>>>> YOU seem to have a misunderstanding on this, as you like to call
>>>> your H a "UTM" even though it fails to meet the definition.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, that is because you don't understand the definition, of
>>>> the definition of definitions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> As I have mentioned MAMY times, you seem to have a fundamental
>>>>>> confusion between the RUNNING of the program, and the SIMULATION
>>>>>> of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This seems to go back to your lack of understand what Truth
>>>>>> actually is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RUNNING is what happens when it is carried out completely
>>>>>> correctly, as with a real correct processor which is left to run,
>>>>>> or on the mathematical model, that runs until it finishes (even if
>>>>>> never)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SIMULATING, in the proper case, means simulating the steps of the
>>>>>> program until you can correctly determine the answer for what you
>>>>>> are tying to do the simulation. IF it is about the behavior of
>>>>>> actually running the program, as is the job of a Halt Decider,
>>>>>> then it doesn't matter if the simulation is stopped at some point,
>>>>>> but if the simulation was able to actually PROVE the behavior of
>>>>>> the actual program.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With Infinite_Recursion, there ARE proof steps that can be do to
>>>>>> atually formally prove that this program can NEVER reach a final
>>>>>> state, and thus, a properly designed H can correctly abort it
>>>>>> simulation and say the program represented by the input does not
>>>>>> halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note, This logic has NOTHING to do with "The input simulated by
>>>>>> the Decideer" type questions, but is ALWAYS asking about the
>>>>>> behavior of the original machine as run.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to try to define some meaning into your gobbledygook
>>>>>> of "D simulated by H", then YOU need to figure out what you can't
>>>>>> figure out how to handle even these trivial cases, you have a LOT
>>>>>> of work in front of you,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, if YOU are questioning why H can be correct saying its
>>>>>> simulation of Infinite-Recursion would be non-halting, why do you
>>>>>> think it is correct about D?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All other points are ignored until this point is
>>>>>>> fully addressed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep, YOU need to decide how you want to define this,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If your criteria is NOT about the actual behavior of the actual
>>>>>> program, YOU need to figure out what you want, and how to define
>>>>>> it, THEN you can try to show why this new condition has any actual
>>>>>> practical purpose.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just makinging something very loosely related to halting
>>>>>> decidable, isn't likely going to win many people over.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To go forward a step (ignore if you please, but I see where you
>>>>>>>> are trying to go.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void Infinite_Simulation(ptr p)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> UTM(p, p);
>>>>>>>> return;
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> will also be an "infinte behavior" program when looked at as
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> H(Infinite_Simulation, Infinite_Simulation)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as the FULL loop (including through the UTM) is unconditional.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BUT
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> void X(ptr p)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> H(p,p)
>>>>>>>> return
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> is NOT the same if H(X,X) will ever decide to abort and return a
>>>>>>>> decision, thinking it is like the Infinite_Simulation case, as
>>>>>>>> the FULL Loop, which includes the code of H, is not unconditional.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And this is true as if we just run X(X), then it will call
>>>>>>>> H(X,X) which, since you say H(X,X) will eventually decide to
>>>>>>>> abort its simulation and return, so X(X) WILL reach its final
>>>>>>>> state, and that says that one of my proposals could detect that
>>>>>>>> and reach past the call.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Note, this is NOT the "imposible program", as it doesn't have
>>>>>>>> the contray stuff at the end, but your H can't know that, so its
>>>>>>>> logic must be wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web