Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #104381 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-05-05 12:02 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-05-07 03:38 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 643 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:22 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 13:43 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 14:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:30 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:56 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:56 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 19:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 20:26 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 22:11 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:57 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:14 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 09:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:01 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 19:37 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 13:31 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:04 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-07 10:12 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- typo olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 18:44 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:35 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 20:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:15 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:42 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:03 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:34 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 10:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:53 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 21:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:05 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:11 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 09:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:11 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 14:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:31 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 19:29 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:39 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:00 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:07 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:55 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:59 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 00:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 23:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 07:16 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 09:35 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:46 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:33 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:32 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:44 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 19:19 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 13:28 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 21:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:55 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 00:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 23:11 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 07:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 09:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:26 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:48 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:38 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 12:31 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 18:42 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 18:30 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:29 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:51 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 23:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:45 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:35 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:47 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-09 12:34 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:21 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:37 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 22:49 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 07:25 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 19:37 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:19 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:32 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:35 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-07 10:30 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 07:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 10:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 18:31 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 12:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:42 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-08 11:54 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 20:54 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 14:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 22:40 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 16:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-08 11:07 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:07 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-08 20:48 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-09 08:43 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 07:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 14:15 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-10 11:09 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:43 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-08 11:59 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-08 16:13 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:38 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 10:38 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Richard tried to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:10 -0500
Re: Olcott doesn't understand logic Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 10:50 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 12:12 -0400
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 12:49 -0500
Olcott keeps on lying. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 15:27 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:50 -0400
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 16:11 -0500
Olcott thinks something isn't iteself. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 17:19 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 16:43 -0500
Olcott can't tell the difference between a machine and an infinte set of machines Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 17:59 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 17:28 -0500
Olcott thinks One is Infinity Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 18:39 -0400
Richard seems to be a liar. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 18:39 -0500
Olcott doesn't know the difference between an element an the set Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 22:17 -0400
Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 21:21 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No, but Olcott is. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 22:39 -0400
Richard must be educated on what a termination analyzer is olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 21:49 -0500
Olcott admits to creating defintion out of his *ss Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 23:16 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-11 11:27 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 11:26 -0500
Re: Is Oclott a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 12:46 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-12 12:19 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-12 07:34 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-12 18:21 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 10:58 -0500
Olcott admits to being a liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-12 12:57 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-14 12:44 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 09:21 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-15 11:04 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:03 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 13:15 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:37 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 12:28 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:07 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 13:38 +0300
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 08:43 -0400
Richard is proven to be incorrect on a key point olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 09:53 -0500
Re: Richard is proven to be incorrect on a key point Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:03 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 13:33 +0300
embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ where embedded_H is based on a UTM olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 09:50 -0500
Re: embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ where embedded_H is based on a UTM Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:06 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 09:32 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-14 15:08 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 10:30 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 17:42 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 10:45 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 18:13 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 12:14 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 19:49 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 12:52 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 20:30 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 13:40 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-14 19:01 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-15 11:17 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:10 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 16:20 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:59 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 17:53 +0200
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 12:42 +0300
Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:27 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:18 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 21:36 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:42 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 22:05 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 15:13 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 08:21 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:02 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 16:50 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:27 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 20:19 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:39 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 21:13 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 15:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 08:41 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 12:36 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:54 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 17:12 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 11:04 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 20:55 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 14:32 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 09:41 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:31 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 18:24 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 12:18 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 21:02 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 14:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 10:45 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-18 10:43 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 10:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:40 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 14:13 +0200
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 23:05 -0500
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 07:24 -0400
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 07:53 -0500
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar. Message ID Provided, so OLCOTT is the LIAR. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 09:13 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 10:26 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:38 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 12:50 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 15:43 +0300
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 12:47 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:31 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:17 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:24 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-18 10:12 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-18 10:55 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 10:27 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:31 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:56 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 20:26 +0200
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 06:27 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:09 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-15 11:25 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:47 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-15 11:21 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:43 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 16:26 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:04 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:16 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 13:40 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:16 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 14:54 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 17:04 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:57 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 18:04 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:33 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 19:29 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 15:18 -0500
Re: Is Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 17:50 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:19 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! (Glad you argree) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Pathological Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-15 23:28 +0200
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-15 11:06 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:06 -0500
Re: Olcott Is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 13:42 +0300
Nature of undecidable halting joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-16 13:20 +0000
Re: Nature of undecidable halting --- Connecting truth-bearers to their truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:00 -0500
Re: Nature of undecidable halting --- Connecting truth-bearers to their truthmaker Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 23:11 -0400
Re: Nature of undecidable halting Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 13:04 +0300
Re: Nature of undecidable halting ---Handling undecidable inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:49 -0500
Re: Nature of undecidable halting ---Handling undecidable inputs Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:48 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-17 07:09 +0000
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-05-17 13:50 +0100
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:28 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker -- Reply to Ben's long standing objection olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:42 -0500
Reply to Ben's long standing objection --- I finally have the words olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:46 -0500
Re: Reply to Ben's long standing objection --- I finally have the words Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 13:45 +0300
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 12:01 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 12:11 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 13:22 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 08:51 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-13 06:53 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 08:19 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-13 23:49 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 17:51 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-14 02:17 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 19:37 -0500
Re: Olcott KEEPS LYING about Richard not refuting his statemnt. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 21:51 -0400
Re: Olcott KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:29 -0400
Re: Olcott KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-10 17:55 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 13:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-10 18:38 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 14:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-11 09:48 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 10:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 11:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 11:48 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 12:58 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 12:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 19:25 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-11 17:14 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 12:28 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 19:25 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-13 06:54 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 00:19 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-13 07:29 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 08:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 07:22 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-13 12:14 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 09:43 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-14 00:20 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 18:00 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-14 12:52 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 09:35 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:16 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-15 11:18 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:24 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 16:23 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 13:48 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:50 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-16 16:15 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 11:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 13:56 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-17 20:02 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 18:00 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2024-05-17 17:15 -0600
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 19:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 19:24 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2024-05-18 20:58 -0600
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 22:27 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-19 05:45 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 22:50 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 08:07 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-19 14:15 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 08:11 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 13:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-20 11:01 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-20 12:06 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 08:03 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 19:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 10:30 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 09:20 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 18:45 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 13:53 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 12:14 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 16:02 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 10:07 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:11 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2024-05-18 21:52 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-19 04:22 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 11:30 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 14:09 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 14:12 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 14:34 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 13:29 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 16:32 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-20 21:46 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 22:21 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 22:42 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 08:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 12:48 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-20 11:16 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-20 14:00 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-20 14:11 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-20 16:43 +0000
Topicality: Who really cares? (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-20 17:45 +0000
Re: Topicality: Who really cares? (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-21 11:36 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 11:28 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-21 11:36 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-21 11:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-21 20:27 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 12:10 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 13:13 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-22 10:50 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 17:27 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-21 06:47 +0200
Lying meets the standard of losing defamation cases olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 00:03 -0500
Re: Lying meets the standard of losing defamation cases Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 07:54 -0400
Lying meets the standard of losing defamation cases olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 00:05 -0500
Re: Lying meets the standard of losing defamation cases Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 07:56 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 22:35 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-21 08:52 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-21 10:56 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-21 11:36 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-21 11:48 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-21 18:10 +0200
Thought control??? (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-21 17:16 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 21:46 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 20:13 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2024-05-21 22:55 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-22 07:48 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-22 07:41 +0200
Re: Policy dispute (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-22 12:56 +0000
Re: Policy dispute (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###) immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-22 07:42 +0200
Policy dispute (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-22 05:32 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-22 18:40 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-22 15:30 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-05-22 16:15 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-22 11:15 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 12:12 -0700
Subway (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-21 19:15 +0000
Re: Subway (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 12:51 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 13:08 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 13:24 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 13:26 -0700
Welcome! (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-21 21:13 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-22 07:40 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-23 19:29 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 17:19 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 22:45 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2024-05-19 00:48 -0600
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-18 11:34 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:44 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 18:01 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 12:04 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 11:31 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-18 12:49 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 11:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-19 13:23 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-20 11:14 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-18 12:32 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 12:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-18 13:01 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 12:03 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 13:20 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-19 10:53 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 07:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-19 16:48 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 09:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 13:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 13:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 15:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 14:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 15:49 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 15:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 19:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 15:59 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 19:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 13:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-20 11:35 +0300
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 12:58 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-20 11:21 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 12:56 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-21 06:49 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 00:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 07:58 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-21 13:06 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 08:44 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 21:46 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-22 10:17 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 08:54 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-21 16:38 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 21:46 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-22 10:39 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 09:51 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-22 19:01 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-23 13:06 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 08:18 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-23 21:44 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-24 11:58 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 12:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-24 13:25 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-25 11:14 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 07:09 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 08:54 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 13:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 14:16 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 13:28 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 15:23 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 15:09 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 16:21 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-26 11:57 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 08:32 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-26 19:19 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 11:50 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-26 13:16 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-27 11:11 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 08:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 10:10 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 09:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 10:58 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 10:43 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 11:56 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 11:06 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 12:37 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 14:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 17:34 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 17:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 19:12 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-28 11:21 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 10:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 22:04 -0400
My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 21:30 -0500
Re: My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 23:38 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 12:10 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 17:11 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-28 11:17 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 10:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 12:14 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 16:57 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 10:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 17:27 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 17:58 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 13:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-28 10:17 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 09:37 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-29 12:08 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 08:17 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 12:04 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-26 12:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 13:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-18 10:54 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 10:12 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:22 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-18 16:18 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 11:27 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-09 04:05 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 22:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-10 00:43 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 20:07 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-10 03:25 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:08 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-09 12:37 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-09 18:06 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 12:50 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### (watches state changes) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 23:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 13:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:20 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-08 19:07 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:08 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-09 10:17 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:52 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 15:37 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:24 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-08 11:46 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 07:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-08 19:11 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-09 10:24 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-10 14:53 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-08 11:41 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 10:45 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:38 +0200
Page 3 of 33 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 33 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 23:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v19jsi$5asq$12@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104436 |
On 5/5/24 11:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/5/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/5/24 8:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/5/24 6:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/5/2024 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/5/24 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/5/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/5/24 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>>>> enables
>>>>>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>>>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine
>>>>>>>>> code of its
>>>>>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly
>>>>>>>>> matches a
>>>>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input
>>>>>>>>> will never
>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except that the pattern it uses is incorrect, since H(D,D) using
>>>>>>>> this "pattern" says that D(D) will not halt, where, when main
>>>>>>>> calls D(D), it does return/halt, so H is just incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 int 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, PROVEN WRONG AND THE PROOF IGNORED, PO have even claimed
>>>>>>>> that it would be trivial to show the error in the proof, but
>>>>>>>> hasn't done it, showing that he doesn't actually have an answer
>>>>>>>> to the refutation, and thus by just repeating a statment that is
>>>>>>>> know to at least potentially have a problem as if it was just
>>>>>>>> clearly true is just a pathological lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>>>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that
>>>>>>>>> this D(D)
>>>>>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except that the proof shows that you are not smart enough to
>>>>>>>> think of some of the ways arround the problem (even though those
>>>>>>>> methods were discussed a long time back)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves the behavior of each D simulated by
>>>>>>> each H of the elements of the infinite set of H/D pairs where this D
>>>>>>> calls that H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, your problem is you stop simulating at the call to H and
>>>>>> then resort to incorrect logic to try to figure out what happens
>>>>>> next.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to usually tell you the exactly same thing several
>>>>> hundreds of times before you notice that I ever said it once.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>>>
>>>>> H that simulates the D that calls H(D,D) will simulate to
>>>>> 1 ∞ steps of D.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, when your H simulates the call to H(D,D) inside D, your H does
>>>> NOT simulated that H, but instead simultes the machine that that
>>>> machine would be simulating.
>>>
>>> I am not talking about my H
>>> I am talking about every element of the infinite set of
>>> H/D pairs where D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>
>>> The 1st H simulates 1 steps of D
>>> The 2nd H simulates 2 steps of D
>>> The 3rd H simulates 3 steps of D
>>> ...
>>> The 5,000,000,000 H simulates 5,000,000,000 steps of D
>>> ...
>>> All the way up to H that simulates ∞ steps of D
>>>
>>> None of these D(D) simulated by the H that D(D) calls
>>> ever reach past their own line 03.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And none of these have anything thing to do with your H, what does it
>> have to do with it?
>>
>
> I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MY H I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ABOVE H/D PAIRS
> I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MY H I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ABOVE H/D PAIRS
> I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MY H I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ABOVE H/D PAIRS
> I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MY H I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ABOVE H/D PAIRS
> I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MY H I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ABOVE H/D PAIRS
> I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MY H I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ABOVE H/D PAIRS
> I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MY H I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ABOVE H/D PAIRS
> I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MY H I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ABOVE H/D PAIRS
> I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MY H I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ABOVE H/D PAIRS
> I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT MY H I AM TALKING ABOUT THE ABOVE H/D PAIRS
So, if they are not H, then what do they have to do with what H should
return?
It seems when you are asked about cats, you are answering about 10 story
office buildings.
Your definition was "Simulation by H", if these pairs are NOT H, then
they have NOTHING to do with what that should be.
I think you just buried your logic in the hole you dug.
It seems you can't read English, as you didn't answer the question.
I guess you are just admiting that your whole logic is built on lies.
>
>> Question, do these H actually simulate the instructions of the H that
>> D calls, or not?
>>
>> Why does my second example of how to build an H in the post you refuse
>> to answer no handle this case?
>>
>> If these H are built by that template, there will be a point where the
>> H that simulates some number of steps of D and H will find it reaches
>> the point where H returns to D, which you say is impossible, thus your
>> logic is wrong.
>>
>> Prove me wrong, as I have proved you wrong (and not be refuted).
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 21:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v19fmj$2aufj$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104419 |
On 5/5/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/5/24 6:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/5/2024 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/5/24 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/5/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/5/24 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>> enables
>>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine code
>>>>>> of its
>>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly
>>>>>> matches a
>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input will
>>>>>> never
>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that the pattern it uses is incorrect, since H(D,D) using
>>>>> this "pattern" says that D(D) will not halt, where, when main calls
>>>>> D(D), it does return/halt, so H is just incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 int 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, PROVEN WRONG AND THE PROOF IGNORED, PO have even claimed that
>>>>> it would be trivial to show the error in the proof, but hasn't done
>>>>> it, showing that he doesn't actually have an answer to the
>>>>> refutation, and thus by just repeating a statment that is know to
>>>>> at least potentially have a problem as if it was just clearly true
>>>>> is just a pathological lie.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that this
>>>>>> D(D)
>>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that the proof shows that you are not smart enough to think
>>>>> of some of the ways arround the problem (even though those methods
>>>>> were discussed a long time back)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The above execution trace proves the behavior of each D simulated by
>>>> each H of the elements of the infinite set of H/D pairs where this D
>>>> calls that H.
>>>
>>> Nope, your problem is you stop simulating at the call to H and then
>>> resort to incorrect logic to try to figure out what happens next.
>>>
>>
>> I have to usually tell you the exactly same thing several
>> hundreds of times before you notice that I ever said it once.
>>
>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>
>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>
>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>
>> H that simulates the D that calls H(D,D) will simulate to
>> 1 ∞ steps of D.
>
> Nope, when your H simulates the call to H(D,D) inside D, your H does NOT
> simulated that H, but instead simultes the machine that that machine
> would be simulating.
>
I am not talking about my H
I am talking about every element of the infinite set of
H/D pairs where D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
The 1st H simulates 1 steps of D
The 2nd H simulates 2 steps of D
The 3rd H simulates 3 steps of D
...
The 5,000,000,000 H simulates 5,000,000,000 steps of D
...
All the way up to H that simulates ∞ steps of D
None of these D(D) simulated by the H that D(D) calls
ever reach past their own line 03.
--
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 23:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v19hdf$5asr$18@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104430 |
On 5/5/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/5/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/5/24 6:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2024 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/5/24 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/5/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/5/24 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>> enables
>>>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine code
>>>>>>> of its
>>>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly
>>>>>>> matches a
>>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input will
>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that the pattern it uses is incorrect, since H(D,D) using
>>>>>> this "pattern" says that D(D) will not halt, where, when main
>>>>>> calls D(D), it does return/halt, so H is just incorrect.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 int 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, PROVEN WRONG AND THE PROOF IGNORED, PO have even claimed
>>>>>> that it would be trivial to show the error in the proof, but
>>>>>> hasn't done it, showing that he doesn't actually have an answer to
>>>>>> the refutation, and thus by just repeating a statment that is know
>>>>>> to at least potentially have a problem as if it was just clearly
>>>>>> true is just a pathological lie.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that this
>>>>>>> D(D)
>>>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except that the proof shows that you are not smart enough to think
>>>>>> of some of the ways arround the problem (even though those methods
>>>>>> were discussed a long time back)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above execution trace proves the behavior of each D simulated by
>>>>> each H of the elements of the infinite set of H/D pairs where this D
>>>>> calls that H.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, your problem is you stop simulating at the call to H and then
>>>> resort to incorrect logic to try to figure out what happens next.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I have to usually tell you the exactly same thing several
>>> hundreds of times before you notice that I ever said it once.
>>>
>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>
>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>
>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>
>>> H that simulates the D that calls H(D,D) will simulate to
>>> 1 ∞ steps of D.
>>
>> Nope, when your H simulates the call to H(D,D) inside D, your H does
>> NOT simulated that H, but instead simultes the machine that that
>> machine would be simulating.
>>
>
>
> I am not talking about my H
> I am talking about every element of the infinite set of
> H/D pairs where D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>
> The 1st H simulates 1 steps of D
> The 2nd H simulates 2 steps of D
> The 3rd H simulates 3 steps of D
> ...
> The 5,000,000,000 H simulates 5,000,000,000 steps of D
> ...
> All the way up to H that simulates ∞ steps of D
>
> None of these D(D) simulated by the H that D(D) calls
> ever reach past their own line 03.
>
But those H's aren't doing correct simulations, since by your
description they are not doing the call H instuction correctly.
What is your definition of a "Correct Simulation" of the call H instruction?
My example actually does a CORRECT simulation of the full code of D, and
reaches the final state, and doesn't fall prey to the error you coded in
your H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 23:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- |
| Message-ID | <v19la6$2c3bq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104438 |
On 5/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/5/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/5/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/5/24 6:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/5/2024 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/5/24 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/5/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/5/24 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>>> enables
>>>>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine code
>>>>>>>> of its
>>>>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly
>>>>>>>> matches a
>>>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input will
>>>>>>>> never
>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except that the pattern it uses is incorrect, since H(D,D) using
>>>>>>> this "pattern" says that D(D) will not halt, where, when main
>>>>>>> calls D(D), it does return/halt, so H is just incorrect.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 int 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, PROVEN WRONG AND THE PROOF IGNORED, PO have even claimed
>>>>>>> that it would be trivial to show the error in the proof, but
>>>>>>> hasn't done it, showing that he doesn't actually have an answer
>>>>>>> to the refutation, and thus by just repeating a statment that is
>>>>>>> know to at least potentially have a problem as if it was just
>>>>>>> clearly true is just a pathological lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that
>>>>>>>> this D(D)
>>>>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Except that the proof shows that you are not smart enough to
>>>>>>> think of some of the ways arround the problem (even though those
>>>>>>> methods were discussed a long time back)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above execution trace proves the behavior of each D simulated by
>>>>>> each H of the elements of the infinite set of H/D pairs where this D
>>>>>> calls that H.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, your problem is you stop simulating at the call to H and then
>>>>> resort to incorrect logic to try to figure out what happens next.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have to usually tell you the exactly same thing several
>>>> hundreds of times before you notice that I ever said it once.
>>>>
>>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>>
>>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>>
>>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>>
>>>> H that simulates the D that calls H(D,D) will simulate to
>>>> 1 ∞ steps of D.
>>>
>>> Nope, when your H simulates the call to H(D,D) inside D, your H does
>>> NOT simulated that H, but instead simultes the machine that that
>>> machine would be simulating.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I am not talking about my H
>> I am talking about every element of the infinite set of
>> H/D pairs where D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>
>> The 1st H simulates 1 steps of D
>> The 2nd H simulates 2 steps of D
>> The 3rd H simulates 3 steps of D
>> ...
>> The 5,000,000,000 H simulates 5,000,000,000 steps of D
>> ...
>> All the way up to H that simulates ∞ steps of D
>>
>> None of these D(D) simulated by the H that D(D) calls
>> ever reach past their own line 03.
>>
>
> But those H's aren't doing correct simulations, since by your
> description they are not doing the call H instuction correctly.
>
> What is your definition of a "Correct Simulation" of the call H
> instruction?
>
My hypothetical H(D,D) behaves the same way that my actual
HH(DD,DD) works it goes ahead and simulates itself simulating DD.
Hypothetically there is no limit to this. HH(DD,DD) could
simulate itself simulating DD a quadrillion times. If it did
this DD would still never get past its own line 03.
> My example actually does a CORRECT simulation of the full code of D, and
> reaches the final state, and doesn't fall prey to the error you coded in
> your H.
--
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: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- |
| Message-ID | <v1ablo$7eu1$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104447 |
On 5/6/24 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/5/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/5/24 6:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/5/2024 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/5/24 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/5/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/5/24 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
>>>>>>>>> enables
>>>>>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>>>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine
>>>>>>>>> code of its
>>>>>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly
>>>>>>>>> matches a
>>>>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input
>>>>>>>>> will never
>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except that the pattern it uses is incorrect, since H(D,D) using
>>>>>>>> this "pattern" says that D(D) will not halt, where, when main
>>>>>>>> calls D(D), it does return/halt, so H is just incorrect.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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 int 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, PROVEN WRONG AND THE PROOF IGNORED, PO have even claimed
>>>>>>>> that it would be trivial to show the error in the proof, but
>>>>>>>> hasn't done it, showing that he doesn't actually have an answer
>>>>>>>> to the refutation, and thus by just repeating a statment that is
>>>>>>>> know to at least potentially have a problem as if it was just
>>>>>>>> clearly true is just a pathological lie.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>>>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that
>>>>>>>>> this D(D)
>>>>>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Except that the proof shows that you are not smart enough to
>>>>>>>> think of some of the ways arround the problem (even though those
>>>>>>>> methods were discussed a long time back)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves the behavior of each D simulated by
>>>>>>> each H of the elements of the infinite set of H/D pairs where this D
>>>>>>> calls that H.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, your problem is you stop simulating at the call to H and
>>>>>> then resort to incorrect logic to try to figure out what happens
>>>>>> next.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have to usually tell you the exactly same thing several
>>>>> hundreds of times before you notice that I ever said it once.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>>>
>>>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>>>
>>>>> H that simulates the D that calls H(D,D) will simulate to
>>>>> 1 ∞ steps of D.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, when your H simulates the call to H(D,D) inside D, your H does
>>>> NOT simulated that H, but instead simultes the machine that that
>>>> machine would be simulating.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I am not talking about my H
>>> I am talking about every element of the infinite set of
>>> H/D pairs where D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>
>>> The 1st H simulates 1 steps of D
>>> The 2nd H simulates 2 steps of D
>>> The 3rd H simulates 3 steps of D
>>> ...
>>> The 5,000,000,000 H simulates 5,000,000,000 steps of D
>>> ...
>>> All the way up to H that simulates ∞ steps of D
>>>
>>> None of these D(D) simulated by the H that D(D) calls
>>> ever reach past their own line 03.
>>>
>>
>> But those H's aren't doing correct simulations, since by your
>> description they are not doing the call H instuction correctly.
>>
>> What is your definition of a "Correct Simulation" of the call H
>> instruction?
>>
>
> My hypothetical H(D,D) behaves the same way that my actual
> HH(DD,DD) works it goes ahead and simulates itself simulating DD.
>
> Hypothetically there is no limit to this. HH(DD,DD) could
> simulate itself simulating DD a quadrillion times. If it did
> this DD would still never get past its own line 03.
And why do you get to use version of HH for H?
That seems to be about looking at something that isn't what you have,
Or, answering about 10 story office buildings when the question is about
cats.
>
>> My example actually does a CORRECT simulation of the full code of D,
>> and reaches the final state, and doesn't fall prey to the error you
>> coded in your H.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 09:52 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- |
| Message-ID | <v1aqs3$2k9je$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104450 |
On 5/6/2024 5:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/6/24 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/5/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/5/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/5/24 6:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/5/2024 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/5/24 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/5/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/5/24 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system:
>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enables
>>>>>>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>>>>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine
>>>>>>>>>> code of its
>>>>>>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly
>>>>>>>>>> matches a
>>>>>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input
>>>>>>>>>> will never
>>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except that the pattern it uses is incorrect, since H(D,D)
>>>>>>>>> using this "pattern" says that D(D) will not halt, where, when
>>>>>>>>> main calls D(D), it does return/halt, so H is just incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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 int 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, PROVEN WRONG AND THE PROOF IGNORED, PO have even claimed
>>>>>>>>> that it would be trivial to show the error in the proof, but
>>>>>>>>> hasn't done it, showing that he doesn't actually have an answer
>>>>>>>>> to the refutation, and thus by just repeating a statment that
>>>>>>>>> is know to at least potentially have a problem as if it was
>>>>>>>>> just clearly true is just a pathological lie.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>>>>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that
>>>>>>>>>> this D(D)
>>>>>>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Except that the proof shows that you are not smart enough to
>>>>>>>>> think of some of the ways arround the problem (even though
>>>>>>>>> those methods were discussed a long time back)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves the behavior of each D
>>>>>>>> simulated by
>>>>>>>> each H of the elements of the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>>>>>>> this D
>>>>>>>> calls that H.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, your problem is you stop simulating at the call to H and
>>>>>>> then resort to incorrect logic to try to figure out what happens
>>>>>>> next.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have to usually tell you the exactly same thing several
>>>>>> hundreds of times before you notice that I ever said it once.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>>>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>>>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>>>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> H that simulates the D that calls H(D,D) will simulate to
>>>>>> 1 ∞ steps of D.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, when your H simulates the call to H(D,D) inside D, your H
>>>>> does NOT simulated that H, but instead simultes the machine that
>>>>> that machine would be simulating.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I am not talking about my H
>>>> I am talking about every element of the infinite set of
>>>> H/D pairs where D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>>
>>>> The 1st H simulates 1 steps of D
>>>> The 2nd H simulates 2 steps of D
>>>> The 3rd H simulates 3 steps of D
>>>> ...
>>>> The 5,000,000,000 H simulates 5,000,000,000 steps of D
>>>> ...
>>>> All the way up to H that simulates ∞ steps of D
>>>>
>>>> None of these D(D) simulated by the H that D(D) calls
>>>> ever reach past their own line 03.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But those H's aren't doing correct simulations, since by your
>>> description they are not doing the call H instuction correctly.
>>>
>>> What is your definition of a "Correct Simulation" of the call H
>>> instruction?
>>>
>>
>> My hypothetical H(D,D) behaves the same way that my actual
>> HH(DD,DD) works it goes ahead and simulates itself simulating DD.
>>
>> Hypothetically there is no limit to this. HH(DD,DD) could
>> simulate itself simulating DD a quadrillion times. If it did
>> this DD would still never get past its own line 03.
>
> And why do you get to use version of HH for H?
>
Because my paper is communicating with people that have never
heard any of the internal details and H is the more conventional
name for a termination analyzer.
> That seems to be about looking at something that isn't what you have,
>
The H(D,D) of my paper is a hypothetical termination analyzer
that is physically implemented under a slightly more complicated
name.
> Or, answering about 10 story office buildings when the question is about
> cats.
>
>>
>>> My example actually does a CORRECT simulation of the full code of D,
>>> and reaches the final state, and doesn't fall prey to the error you
>>> coded in your H.
>>
>
--
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 22:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- |
| Message-ID | <v1c2k9$9f72$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104453 |
On 5/6/24 10:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/6/2024 5:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/6/24 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/5/2024 10:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/5/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/5/2024 5:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/5/24 6:03 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/5/2024 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/5/24 3:10 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/5/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/5/24 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> The x86utm operating system:
>>>>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enables
>>>>>>>>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>>>>>>>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine
>>>>>>>>>>> code of its
>>>>>>>>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly
>>>>>>>>>>> matches a
>>>>>>>>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input
>>>>>>>>>>> will never
>>>>>>>>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Except that the pattern it uses is incorrect, since H(D,D)
>>>>>>>>>> using this "pattern" says that D(D) will not halt, where, when
>>>>>>>>>> main calls D(D), it does return/halt, so H is just incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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 int 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, PROVEN WRONG AND THE PROOF IGNORED, PO have even claimed
>>>>>>>>>> that it would be trivial to show the error in the proof, but
>>>>>>>>>> hasn't done it, showing that he doesn't actually have an
>>>>>>>>>> answer to the refutation, and thus by just repeating a
>>>>>>>>>> statment that is know to at least potentially have a problem
>>>>>>>>>> as if it was just clearly true is just a pathological lie.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>>>>>>>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that
>>>>>>>>>>> this D(D)
>>>>>>>>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Except that the proof shows that you are not smart enough to
>>>>>>>>>> think of some of the ways arround the problem (even though
>>>>>>>>>> those methods were discussed a long time back)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The above execution trace proves the behavior of each D
>>>>>>>>> simulated by
>>>>>>>>> each H of the elements of the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>>>>>>>> this D
>>>>>>>>> calls that H.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, your problem is you stop simulating at the call to H and
>>>>>>>> then resort to incorrect logic to try to figure out what happens
>>>>>>>> next.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have to usually tell you the exactly same thing several
>>>>>>> hundreds of times before you notice that I ever said it once.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>>>>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>>>>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We are talking about the infinite set of H/D pairs where
>>>>>>> D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> H that simulates the D that calls H(D,D) will simulate to
>>>>>>> 1 ∞ steps of D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, when your H simulates the call to H(D,D) inside D, your H
>>>>>> does NOT simulated that H, but instead simultes the machine that
>>>>>> that machine would be simulating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not talking about my H
>>>>> I am talking about every element of the infinite set of
>>>>> H/D pairs where D is simulated by the same H that D calls.
>>>>>
>>>>> The 1st H simulates 1 steps of D
>>>>> The 2nd H simulates 2 steps of D
>>>>> The 3rd H simulates 3 steps of D
>>>>> ...
>>>>> The 5,000,000,000 H simulates 5,000,000,000 steps of D
>>>>> ...
>>>>> All the way up to H that simulates ∞ steps of D
>>>>>
>>>>> None of these D(D) simulated by the H that D(D) calls
>>>>> ever reach past their own line 03.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But those H's aren't doing correct simulations, since by your
>>>> description they are not doing the call H instuction correctly.
>>>>
>>>> What is your definition of a "Correct Simulation" of the call H
>>>> instruction?
>>>>
>>>
>>> My hypothetical H(D,D) behaves the same way that my actual
>>> HH(DD,DD) works it goes ahead and simulates itself simulating DD.
>>>
>>> Hypothetically there is no limit to this. HH(DD,DD) could
>>> simulate itself simulating DD a quadrillion times. If it did
>>> this DD would still never get past its own line 03.
>>
>> And why do you get to use version of HH for H?
>>
>
> Because my paper is communicating with people that have never
> heard any of the internal details and H is the more conventional
> name for a termination analyzer.
So, you are admitting that there IS NO H as a specific machine to try to
decide on D.
Thus, "main" can't call it.
Thus, it isn't a decicdr.
How do you write a program calling an infinite set of subroutines?
>
>> That seems to be about looking at something that isn't what you have,
>>
>
> The H(D,D) of my paper is a hypothetical termination analyzer
> that is physically implemented under a slightly more complicated
> name.
No it isn't, because you are saying that your H isn't "*A* Termination
Analyzer", but is an infinite set of programs.
Thus, it isn't a program itself.
You just have your definitions crossed.
>
>> Or, answering about 10 story office buildings when the question is
>> about cats.
>>
>>>
>>>> My example actually does a CORRECT simulation of the full code of D,
>>>> and reaches the final state, and doesn't fall prey to the error you
>>>> coded in your H.
>>>
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 14:40 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v18nbf$21c98$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104395 |
On 5/5/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/5/24 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>> The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enables
>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine code of its
>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly matches a
>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input will never
>> stop running unless aborted.
>
> Except that the pattern it uses is incorrect, since H(D,D) using this
> "pattern" says that D(D) will not halt, where, when main calls D(D), it
> does return/halt, so H is just incorrect.
>
>
>>
>> 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 int 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.
>
> Nope, PROVEN WRONG AND THE PROOF IGNORED, PO have even claimed that it
> would be trivial to show the error in the proof, but hasn't done it,
> showing that he doesn't actually have an answer to the refutation, and
> thus by just repeating a statment that is know to at least potentially
> have a problem as if it was just clearly true is just a pathological lie.
>
>>
>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that this D(D)
>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>
> Except that the proof shows that you are not smart enough to think of
> some of the ways arround the problem (even though those methods were
> discussed a long time back)
>
Mismatching the elements of the infinite set of H/D pairs has
been unequivocally accounted for.
*The above execution trace proves the behavior of each D simulated by*
*each H of the elements of the infinite set of H/D pairs where this D*
*calls that H*
If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows
the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the empty
claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen.
*I will perpetually hound you for this evidence*
*I will perpetually hound you for this evidence*
*I will perpetually hound you for this evidence*
This same method worked on an election denier, they deleted all
of their claims of election fraud and left.
>>
>> *Shown by ordinary software engineering* When the directly executed
>> H(D,D) aborts simulating its input then all of the nested simulations
>> (if any) immediately totally stop running and no simulated H ever
>> returns any value to any simulated D.
>>
>
> Right, but that doesn't change the behavor of the correctly and
> completely simulated input or the direct execution of the program
> descirbed.
>
>> From this we can definitely know that every D(D) of the infinite set
>> of H/D pairs where this D(D) is simulated by the H that this D(D) calls
>> that this D(D) presents non-halting behavior to this H.
>
> Nope. And the conclusion doesn't even follow from the incorrect premise.
>
>
>>
>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>
>
> Just 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 |
| Message-ID | <v18sq7$5asr$10@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104405 |
On 5/5/24 3:40 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/5/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/5/24 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enables
>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine code of its
>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly matches a
>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input will never
>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>
>> Except that the pattern it uses is incorrect, since H(D,D) using this
>> "pattern" says that D(D) will not halt, where, when main calls D(D),
>> it does return/halt, so H is just incorrect.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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 int 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.
>>
>> Nope, PROVEN WRONG AND THE PROOF IGNORED, PO have even claimed that it
>> would be trivial to show the error in the proof, but hasn't done it,
>> showing that he doesn't actually have an answer to the refutation, and
>> thus by just repeating a statment that is know to at least potentially
>> have a problem as if it was just clearly true is just a pathological lie.
>>
>>>
>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that this D(D)
>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>
>> Except that the proof shows that you are not smart enough to think of
>> some of the ways arround the problem (even though those methods were
>> discussed a long time back)
>>
>
> Mismatching the elements of the infinite set of H/D pairs has
> been unequivocally accounted for.
And a LIE to say that is what I did.
>
> *The above execution trace proves the behavior of each D simulated by*
> *each H of the elements of the infinite set of H/D pairs where this D*
> *calls that H*
Nope.
>
> If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows
> the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the empty
> claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen.
But not "Top Secret" as openly published here, and it was using ideas
that have been discussed here in the past.
>
> *I will perpetually hound you for this evidence*
> *I will perpetually hound you for this evidence*
> *I will perpetually hound you for this evidence*
By LYING that it was not presented.
Just shows you can't actually face truth.
>
> This same method worked on an election denier, they deleted all
> of their claims of election fraud and left.
So, are you willing to put up or shut up?
If I can show you how to write a valid C program H that can correctly
simulates this D above (that calls my H), will you abandon your repeated
claims that you can do this?
>
>>>
>>> *Shown by ordinary software engineering* When the directly executed
>>> H(D,D) aborts simulating its input then all of the nested simulations
>>> (if any) immediately totally stop running and no simulated H ever
>>> returns any value to any simulated D.
>>>
>>
>> Right, but that doesn't change the behavor of the correctly and
>> completely simulated input or the direct execution of the program
>> descirbed.
>>
>>> From this we can definitely know that every D(D) of the infinite set
>>> of H/D pairs where this D(D) is simulated by the H that this D(D) calls
>>> that this D(D) presents non-halting behavior to this H.
>>
>> Nope. And the conclusion doesn't even follow from the incorrect premise.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>
>>
>> Just LIES.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-05 16:31 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v18trj$22tig$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104410 |
On 5/5/2024 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/5/24 3:40 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/5/2024 12:22 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/5/24 1:02 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> The x86utm operating system: https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm enables
>>>> one C function to execute another C function in debug step mode.
>>>> Simulating Termination analyzer H simulates the x86 machine code of its
>>>> input (using libx86emu) in debug step mode until it correctly matches a
>>>> correct non-halting behavior pattern proving that its input will never
>>>> stop running unless aborted.
>>>
>>> Except that the pattern it uses is incorrect, since H(D,D) using this
>>> "pattern" says that D(D) will not halt, where, when main calls D(D),
>>> it does return/halt, so H is just incorrect.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 int 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.
>>>
>>> Nope, PROVEN WRONG AND THE PROOF IGNORED, PO have even claimed that
>>> it would be trivial to show the error in the proof, but hasn't done
>>> it, showing that he doesn't actually have an answer to the
>>> refutation, and thus by just repeating a statment that is know to at
>>> least potentially have a problem as if it was just clearly true is
>>> just a pathological lie.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The above execution trace proves that (for every H/D pair of the
>>>> infinite set of H/D pairs) each D(D) simulated by the H that this D(D)
>>>> calls cannot possibly reach past its own line 03.
>>>
>>> Except that the proof shows that you are not smart enough to think of
>>> some of the ways arround the problem (even though those methods were
>>> discussed a long time back)
>>>
>>
>> Mismatching the elements of the infinite set of H/D pairs has
>> been unequivocally accounted for.
>
> And a LIE to say that is what I did.
>
>
>>
>> *The above execution trace proves the behavior of each D simulated by*
>> *each H of the elements of the infinite set of H/D pairs where this D*
>> *calls that H*
>
> Nope.
>
>>
>> If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows
>> the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the empty
>> claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen.
>
> But not "Top Secret" as openly published here, and it was using ideas
> that have been discussed here in the past.
>
>
>>
>> *I will perpetually hound you for this evidence*
>> *I will perpetually hound you for this evidence*
>> *I will perpetually hound you for this evidence*
>
> By LYING that it was not presented.
>
> Just shows you can't actually face truth.
>
>>
>> This same method worked on an election denier, they deleted all
>> of their claims of election fraud and left.
>
> So, are you willing to put up or shut up?
>
An election denier knew that I beat them.
They deleted all of their election denial replies and left.
> If I can show you how to write a valid C program H that can correctly
> simulates this D above (that calls my H), will you abandon your repeated
> claims that you can do this?
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> *Shown by ordinary software engineering* When the directly executed
>>>> H(D,D) aborts simulating its input then all of the nested simulations
>>>> (if any) immediately totally stop running and no simulated H ever
>>>> returns any value to any simulated D.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, but that doesn't change the behavor of the correctly and
>>> completely simulated input or the direct execution of the program
>>> descirbed.
>>>
>>>> From this we can definitely know that every D(D) of the infinite set
>>>> of H/D pairs where this D(D) is simulated by the H that this D(D) calls
>>>> that this D(D) presents non-halting behavior to this H.
>>>
>>> Nope. And the conclusion doesn't even follow from the incorrect premise.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D*
>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just 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 19:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v194ob$5asq$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104414 |
On 5/5/24 5:31 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/5/2024 4:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> >> So, are you willing to put up or shut up? >> > > An election denier knew that I beat them. > They deleted all of their election denial replies and left. So, are you saying you are going to do the same? Or are you going to submit to put up or shut up. Or are you just going to waste the rest of you life denying things that have been proven? > >> If I can show you how to write a valid C program H that can correctly >> simulates this D above (that calls my H), will you abandon your >> repeated claims that you can do this? >>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | immibis <news@immibis.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 03:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v1c0p8$2skfl$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104405 |
On 5/05/24 21:40, olcott wrote: > If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows > the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the empty > claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen. The simulated execution trace is proven incorrect because it is different from the actual execution trace. This is not top secret - it is very obvious.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 22:00 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ |
| Message-ID | <v1c5fk$31a3g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104470 |
On 5/6/2024 8:39 PM, immibis wrote:
> On 5/05/24 21:40, olcott wrote:
>> If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows
>> the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the empty
>> claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen.
>
> The simulated execution trace is proven incorrect because it is
> different from the actual execution trace.
>
> This is not top secret - it is very obvious.
>
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 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 }
Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
same H(D,D) that D(D) calls: AS IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE
Involves 1 to ∞ steps of D and also includes zero to ∞
recursive simulations where H simulates itself simulating D(D).
None of these simulated inputs can possibly reach past their
own line 03, thus none of them teach their own line 06 and halt.
Once you accept the software engineering of this we can get
into the much more difficult computer science of this.
If you cannot understand the software engineering of this
then there is no sense moving on to something more difficult.
--
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 23:07 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ |
| Message-ID | <v1c5te$9f73$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104478 |
On 5/6/24 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/6/2024 8:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>> On 5/05/24 21:40, olcott wrote:
>>> If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows
>>> the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the empty
>>> claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen.
>>
>> The simulated execution trace is proven incorrect because it is
>> different from the actual execution trace.
>>
>> This is not top secret - it is very obvious.
>>
>
> 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 int main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 }
>
> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls: AS IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE
> Involves 1 to ∞ steps of D and also includes zero to ∞
> recursive simulations where H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>
> None of these simulated inputs can possibly reach past their
> own line 03, thus none of them teach their own line 06 and halt.
>
> Once you accept the software engineering of this we can get
> into the much more difficult computer science of this.
>
> If you cannot understand the software engineering of this
> then there is no sense moving on to something more difficult.
>
Except I have described how to design a set of machines H that can
simulate this input to the finis input to the final line 06.
Thus, your claim is FALSE.
The fact that you keep on repeating it after it has been shown to you
just shows that you are nothing but a pathological liar.
Refute that claim or STFU.
If you are sure I haven't made that proof, take the challenge, and if I
show you where I posted the proof, and you can not show where it doesn't
meet these stated requirements, then you agree to drop this idiotic plan
to try to "prove" that Halting is decidable.
If you aren't sure I haven't made the proof, then you are just admitting
you are a liar for making the claim that it must be true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 22:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ |
| Message-ID | <v1c7jr$31thl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104479 |
On 5/6/2024 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/6/24 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/6/2024 8:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>>> On 5/05/24 21:40, olcott wrote:
>>>> If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows
>>>> the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the empty
>>>> claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen.
>>>
>>> The simulated execution trace is proven incorrect because it is
>>> different from the actual execution trace.
>>>
>>> This is not top secret - it is very obvious.
>>>
>>
>> 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 int main()
>> 10 {
>> 11 H(D,D);
>> 12 }
>>
>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls: AS IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE
>> Involves 1 to ∞ steps of D and also includes zero to ∞
>> recursive simulations where H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>
>> None of these simulated inputs can possibly reach past their
>> own line 03, thus none of them teach their own line 06 and halt.
>>
>> Once you accept the software engineering of this we can get
>> into the much more difficult computer science of this.
>>
>> If you cannot understand the software engineering of this
>> then there is no sense moving on to something more difficult.
>>
>
> Except I have described how to design a set of machines H that can
> simulate this input to the finis input to the final line 06.
>
> Thus, your claim is FALSE.
>
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
> The fact that you keep on repeating it after it has been shown to you
> just shows that you are nothing but a pathological liar.
>
> Refute that claim or STFU.
>
> If you are sure I haven't made that proof, take the challenge, and if I
> show you where I posted the proof, and you can not show where it doesn't
> meet these stated requirements, then you agree to drop this idiotic plan
> to try to "prove" that Halting is decidable.
>
> If you aren't sure I haven't made the proof, then you are just admitting
> you are a liar for making the claim that it must be true.
--
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 23:55 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ |
| Message-ID | <v1c8nh$9f72$8@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104481 |
On 5/6/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/6/2024 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/6/24 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2024 8:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>> On 5/05/24 21:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>> If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows
>>>>> the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the empty
>>>>> claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen.
>>>>
>>>> The simulated execution trace is proven incorrect because it is
>>>> different from the actual execution trace.
>>>>
>>>> This is not top secret - it is very obvious.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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 int main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>> 12 }
>>>
>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls: AS IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE
>>> Involves 1 to ∞ steps of D and also includes zero to ∞
>>> recursive simulations where H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>
>>> None of these simulated inputs can possibly reach past their
>>> own line 03, thus none of them teach their own line 06 and halt.
>>>
>>> Once you accept the software engineering of this we can get
>>> into the much more difficult computer science of this.
>>>
>>> If you cannot understand the software engineering of this
>>> then there is no sense moving on to something more difficult.
>>>
>>
>> Except I have described how to design a set of machines H that can
>> simulate this input to the finis input to the final line 06.
>>
>> Thus, your claim is FALSE.
>>
>
> When you interpret
> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>
> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>
> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
> that would win a defamation case.
Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was
refering to, and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar
by saying it is.
You just don't understand what Truth means.
Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair.
Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then
I can stop refuting you.
>
>> The fact that you keep on repeating it after it has been shown to you
>> just shows that you are nothing but a pathological liar.
>>
>> Refute that claim or STFU.
>>
>> If you are sure I haven't made that proof, take the challenge, and if
>> I show you where I posted the proof, and you can not show where it
>> doesn't meet these stated requirements, then you agree to drop this
>> idiotic plan to try to "prove" that Halting is decidable.
>>
>> If you aren't sure I haven't made the proof, then you are just
>> admitting you are a liar for making the claim that it must be true.
>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 22:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ |
| Message-ID | <v1c8un$3242s$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104484 |
On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/6/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/6/2024 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/6/24 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2024 8:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>> On 5/05/24 21:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows
>>>>>> the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the empty
>>>>>> claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen.
>>>>>
>>>>> The simulated execution trace is proven incorrect because it is
>>>>> different from the actual execution trace.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is not top secret - it is very obvious.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 int main()
>>>> 10 {
>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>> 12 }
>>>>
>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls: AS IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE
>>>> Involves 1 to ∞ steps of D and also includes zero to ∞
>>>> recursive simulations where H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>
>>>> None of these simulated inputs can possibly reach past their
>>>> own line 03, thus none of them teach their own line 06 and halt.
>>>>
>>>> Once you accept the software engineering of this we can get
>>>> into the much more difficult computer science of this.
>>>>
>>>> If you cannot understand the software engineering of this
>>>> then there is no sense moving on to something more difficult.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Except I have described how to design a set of machines H that can
>>> simulate this input to the finis input to the final line 06.
>>>
>>> Thus, your claim is FALSE.
>>>
>>
>> When you interpret
>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>
>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>
>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>> that would win a defamation case.
>
>
> Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was
> refering to,
*It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
*It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
*It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
*It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
*It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
*It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
*I am going to make this my canned reply*
(Until you change your tune).
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
> and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar
> by saying it is.
>
> You just don't understand what Truth means.
>
> Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair.
>
> Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
> forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then
> I can stop refuting you.
>
>>
>>> The fact that you keep on repeating it after it has been shown to you
>>> just shows that you are nothing but a pathological liar.
>>>
>>> Refute that claim or STFU.
>>>
>>> If you are sure I haven't made that proof, take the challenge, and if
>>> I show you where I posted the proof, and you can not show where it
>>> doesn't meet these stated requirements, then you agree to drop this
>>> idiotic plan to try to "prove" that Halting is decidable.
>>>
>>> If you aren't sure I haven't made the proof, then you are just
>>> admitting you are a liar for making the claim that it must be true.
>>
>>
>>
>
--
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 | 2024-05-07 00:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ |
| Message-ID | <v1c9ht$9f73$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104486 |
On 5/6/24 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/6/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2024 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/24 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/2024 8:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/05/24 21:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows
>>>>>>> the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the empty
>>>>>>> claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The simulated execution trace is proven incorrect because it is
>>>>>> different from the actual execution trace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not top secret - it is very obvious.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 int main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>
>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls: AS IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE
>>>>> Involves 1 to ∞ steps of D and also includes zero to ∞
>>>>> recursive simulations where H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>
>>>>> None of these simulated inputs can possibly reach past their
>>>>> own line 03, thus none of them teach their own line 06 and halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once you accept the software engineering of this we can get
>>>>> into the much more difficult computer science of this.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you cannot understand the software engineering of this
>>>>> then there is no sense moving on to something more difficult.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except I have described how to design a set of machines H that can
>>>> simulate this input to the finis input to the final line 06.
>>>>
>>>> Thus, your claim is FALSE.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When you interpret
>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>
>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>
>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>
>>
>> Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was
>> refering to,
>
> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>
> *I am going to make this my canned reply*
> (Until you change your tune).
>
> When you interpret
> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>
> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>
> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
> that would win a defamation case.
>
And I can make this MY canned reply that shows that yours is just a lie.
And I am not on a short clock, so can out wait you.
Except that I have explained that this argument isn't the one I was
refering to, and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar
by saying it is.
You just don't understand what Truth means.
Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair.
Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then
I can stop refuting you.
The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just
admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-06 23:13 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ |
| Message-ID | <v1c9pq$325ls$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104488 |
On 5/6/2024 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/6/24 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/6/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2024 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/24 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 8:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/05/24 21:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows
>>>>>>>> the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the
>>>>>>>> empty
>>>>>>>> claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The simulated execution trace is proven incorrect because it is
>>>>>>> different from the actual execution trace.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is not top secret - it is very obvious.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 int main()
>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls: AS IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE
>>>>>> Involves 1 to ∞ steps of D and also includes zero to ∞
>>>>>> recursive simulations where H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of these simulated inputs can possibly reach past their
>>>>>> own line 03, thus none of them teach their own line 06 and halt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Once you accept the software engineering of this we can get
>>>>>> into the much more difficult computer science of this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you cannot understand the software engineering of this
>>>>>> then there is no sense moving on to something more difficult.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Except I have described how to design a set of machines H that can
>>>>> simulate this input to the finis input to the final line 06.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus, your claim is FALSE.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When you interpret
>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>
>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>
>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>
>>>
>>> Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was
>>> refering to,
>>
>> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>>
>> *I am going to make this my canned reply*
>> (Until you change your tune).
>>
>> When you interpret
>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>
>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>
>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>> that would win a defamation case.
>>
>
>
> And I can make this MY canned reply that shows that yours is just a lie.
> And I am not on a short clock, so can out wait you.
>
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
*It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
When you interpret
On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
*Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
*stop running unless aborted by H*
as *D NEVER simulated by H*
you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
that would win a defamation case.
>
> Except that I have explained that this argument isn't the one I was
> refering to, and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar
> by saying it is.
>
> You just don't understand what Truth means.
>
> Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair.
>
> Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
> forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then
> I can stop refuting you.
>
>
> The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
> that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just
> admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>
>
--
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 | 2024-05-07 07:16 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ |
| Message-ID | <v1d2j1$9f72$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104490 |
On 5/7/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/6/2024 11:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/6/24 11:59 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/24 11:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/2024 10:07 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/6/24 11:00 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 8:39 PM, immibis wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/05/24 21:40, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> If you are claiming that you have some top secret proof that shows
>>>>>>>>> the above execution trace is incorrect I am taking this as the
>>>>>>>>> empty
>>>>>>>>> claims of evidence of election fraud that no one has ever seen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The simulated execution trace is proven incorrect because it is
>>>>>>>> different from the actual execution trace.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is not top secret - it is very obvious.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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 int main()
>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>>> 12 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls: AS IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE
>>>>>>> Involves 1 to ∞ steps of D and also includes zero to ∞
>>>>>>> recursive simulations where H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> None of these simulated inputs can possibly reach past their
>>>>>>> own line 03, thus none of them teach their own line 06 and halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once you accept the software engineering of this we can get
>>>>>>> into the much more difficult computer science of this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you cannot understand the software engineering of this
>>>>>>> then there is no sense moving on to something more difficult.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Except I have described how to design a set of machines H that can
>>>>>> simulate this input to the finis input to the final line 06.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thus, your claim is FALSE.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When you interpret
>>>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>>>
>>>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>>>
>>>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I was
>>>> refering to,
>>>
>>> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>>> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>>> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>>> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>>> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>>> *It is the argument that proves your reckless disregard for the truth*
>>>
>>> *I am going to make this my canned reply*
>>> (Until you change your tune).
>>>
>>> When you interpret
>>> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
>>> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>>>
>>> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>>>
>>> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
>>> that would win a defamation case.
>>>
>>
>>
>> And I can make this MY canned reply that shows that yours is just a lie.
>> And I am not on a short clock, so can out wait you.
>>
>
> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
> *It <is> the argument that proves you don't tell the truth*
>
> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org>
> When you interpret
> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote:
> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly*
> *stop running unless aborted by H*
>
> as *D NEVER simulated by H*
>
> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth
> that would win a defamation case.
And I can make this MY canned reply that shows that yours is just a lie.
And I am not on a short clock, so can out wait you.
Except that I have explained that this argument isn't the one I was
refering to, and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological liar
by saying it is.
You just don't understand what Truth means.
Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are lair.
Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and then
I can stop refuting you.
The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just
admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
You are just proving you can not actually read and understand.
>
>>
>> Except that I have explained that this argument isn't the one I was
>> refering to, and you are just proving yourself to be a pathological
>> liar by saying it is.
>>
>> You just don't understand what Truth means.
>>
>> Since you refuse to stop lying, I will refuse to stop calling you are
>> lair.
>>
>> Of course, (unless you are lying about your health) you may soon be
>> forced to stop posting because you have become unable to do so, and
>> then I can stop refuting you.
>>
>>
>> The fact that you will not take me up on the STFU challange, I guess
>> that proves that you don't really believe your own lies, and are just
>> admitting that you ARE just a pathological liar.
>>
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 33 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 33 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web