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 5 of 33 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 33 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 22:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1eqpg$3nnch$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104523 |
On 5/7/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/7/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/7/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/7/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote: >>> >>>> It is the one that prove you don't tell the truth. >>>> If you don't tell the truth about one thing then you >>>> can't be trusted on the next. >>> >>> And thus, I guess we can just ignore everything you say, as you have >>> been proven to lie many times in the past. >> >> I have never been proven to ever lie yet I did prove >> that you told a falsehood. I assume this was unintentional >> spouting off before you bothered to pay attention. >> > > That is a LIE. > > You have just ignored every proof that you lied because you are just > like that pillow guy. > > >> That you claim to have proof just like the pillow guy >> claims to have proof is ridiculously implausible on >> the basis of your spouting off nonsense on this same >> point. >> > > Nope, I have SHOWN the proof. > > YOU ignored it. > I completely ignored all of your messages for quite a while, possibly weeks. Most of your messages were hardly anything bedsides ad hominem attacks. > Are you willing to put up or shut up? > > or are you going to be chicken and just keep making your false > statements that you don't beleive strongly enough to take a risk on them. > > I guess you are just a chicken liar. You have never not even once gone through every single detail of any of my reasoning. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 07:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1fo8i$dt8i$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104527 |
On 5/7/24 11:16 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/7/2024 9:48 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/7/24 10:33 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/7/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/7/24 10:40 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>> It is the one that prove you don't tell the truth. >>>>> If you don't tell the truth about one thing then you >>>>> can't be trusted on the next. >>>> >>>> And thus, I guess we can just ignore everything you say, as you have >>>> been proven to lie many times in the past. >>> >>> I have never been proven to ever lie yet I did prove >>> that you told a falsehood. I assume this was unintentional >>> spouting off before you bothered to pay attention. >>> >> >> That is a LIE. >> >> You have just ignored every proof that you lied because you are just >> like that pillow guy. >> >> >>> That you claim to have proof just like the pillow guy >>> claims to have proof is ridiculously implausible on >>> the basis of your spouting off nonsense on this same >>> point. >>> >> >> Nope, I have SHOWN the proof. >> >> YOU ignored it. >> > > I completely ignored all of your messages for quite > a while, possibly weeks. Most of your messages were > hardly anything bedsides ad hominem attacks. And thus you can not honestly claim that I didn't say something. Thus, when you say no one has refuted you, you are saying a statement you know might not be true, and thus, you admit you LIE. And thus, by your logic, people should not believe anything you say. Are you going to show that you trust your own ideas, and risk promising to stop if you are actually wrong? > >> Are you willing to put up or shut up? >> >> or are you going to be chicken and just keep making your false >> statements that you don't beleive strongly enough to take a risk on them. >> >> I guess you are just a chicken liar. > > You have never not even once gone through every single > detail of any of my reasoning. > I have gone thorough enough to show it is wrong. Note, to prove something wrong, you need to find AN error, not ALL the errors. You are just proving you don't understand how logic works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 12:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1doi3$3cndh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104494 |
On 5/7/2024 6:17 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/7/24 12:11 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/6/2024 11:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/6/24 11:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/6/2024 10:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/6/24 11:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 10:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/6/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 9:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/6/24 2:28 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/6/2024 11:19 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-05-05 17:02:25 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> When you say "every H/D pair" you should specify which set of
>>>>>>>>>>> pairs
>>>>>>>>>>> you are talking about. As you don't, your words don't mean
>>>>>>>>>>> anything.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Every H/D pair in the universe where D(D) is simulated by the
>>>>>>>>>> same H(D,D) that D(D) calls. This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>>>>>>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>>>>>>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And, since THIS STATEMENT puts no specifications on the design
>>>>>>>>> of H, I have shown that your claim is incorrect.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure *D is simulated by H* could mean that *D is never simulated
>>>>>>>> by H*
>>>>>>>> The exact same way that *No evidence of election fraud* can be
>>>>>>>> construed
>>>>>>>> as complete proof of huge election fraud.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But my proof of this wasn't my showing that your criteria leads
>>>>>>> to the absurdity, but an actual description of how to build a
>>>>>>> machine that actually simulates the input to the end state.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Except that I have explained that this arguement isn't the one I
>>>>> was refering to,
>>>>
>>>> *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 arguement isn't the one I was
>>> refering to,
>>
>> *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*
>> *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.
>
>
> You are just proving you believe in the strawman arguement
>
> As 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.
>
Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
arises to the contrary.
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.
The you claim that I am a liar and do not provide your
basis for this constitutes additional evidence of defamation.
I suspect that you already know you have no basis thus
your intent is purely malevolent.
Proving the "actual malice" of defamation cases need
not show your mental state or intent it only need show
that you showed a reckless disregard for the truth.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation
Because I am not a public figure a preponderance of
evidence is enough to win my case.
> 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.
>
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Note the election deniers do have a small point, that the lack of
>>>>>>> evidence does not prove that there was not fraud, but they
>>>>>>> neglect that there IS a lot of evidence that there was no fraud
>>>>>>> and that the rules of logic say the person asserting the
>>>>>>> existance of something has the burden of proof.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now, fpr you, you HAVE been shown the proof, but you just deny
>>>>>>> that it means anything, so you are WORSE than the election deniers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Until you post a time/date of your proof I will assume that you are
>>>>>>>> NOT telling the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which just means that you admit that you don't care about the truth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As I have challanged you, if you are so sure that I didn't post
>>>>>>> it, call myu bluff and agree that if I can show that I did post
>>>>>>> it, and you can not refute that it works as claimed, that you
>>>>>>> will stop posting your insaine ideas about halting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you aren't sure enough to do that, then you are not sure
>>>>>>> enough to make your claim, and thus are admitting you are just a
>>>>>>> liar.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you are going to restrict it to some infinite set built on a
>>>>>>>>> specific template, you need to say so, or you are just a liar.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is your memory really that bad?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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 SHOWN IN THE ABOVE TEMPLATE THAT I HAVE BEEN REPEATING MANY
>>>>>>>> TIMES A DAY FOR TWO YEARS
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This involves 1 to ∞ steps of D
>>>>>>>> and also includes zero to ∞ recursive simulations where H
>>>>>>>> H simulates itself simulating D(D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, you are NOT restricting the design of your H, except that it
>>>>>>> must simulate its input for 1 to infinite steps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> CHECK.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Proven that one can be designed to reach line 6.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course, that makes you claim much less interesting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
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 18:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1eaov$ca07$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104502 |
On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote: > Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth > about any specific point it is correct to assume any other > assertions about this same point are also false until evidence > arises to the contrary. Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said. PERIOD.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 18:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1edj0$3he4j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104507 |
On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote: > >> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth >> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other >> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence >> arises to the contrary. > > Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said. > > PERIOD. *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org> *When you interpret* On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote: *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly* *stop running unless aborted by H* as *D NEVER simulated by H* you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth that would win a defamation case. *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 22:29 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1eo28$cp5r$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104508 |
On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote: >> >>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth >>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other >>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence >>> arises to the contrary. >> >> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said. >> >> PERIOD. > > *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* > *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* > *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* > *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* > > 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. Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers. > > *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* > *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* > *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* > *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* > But I HAVE told the truth, you LIE when you say I do not. I have proven you claim that it is impossible for an H to simulated D past line 3. THe fact you overlooked it doesn't make the proof invalid. The fact that you won't take the put up or shut up challange indicates that you have enough doubt that your repeating it is just a lie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 21:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1eokj$3nb4c$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104512 |
On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>> >>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth >>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other >>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence >>>> arises to the contrary. >>> >>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said. >>> >>> PERIOD. >> >> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* >> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* >> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* >> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* >> >> Message-ID: <v0ummt$2qov3$2@i2pn2.org> >> *When you interpret* >> On 5/1/2024 7:28 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> > On 5/1/24 11:51 AM, olcott wrote: >> *Every D simulated by H that cannot possibly* >> *stop running unless aborted by H* >> >> as *D NEVER simulated by H* >> >> you have shown a reckless disregard for the truth >> that would win a defamation case. > > Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers. > *Prove it on this point* Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x >> >> *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* >> *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* >> *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* >> *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* >> > > But I HAVE told the truth, you LIE when you say I do not. > > I have proven you claim that it is impossible for an H to simulated D > past line 3. > > THe fact you overlooked it doesn't make the proof invalid. > It is categorically impossible and you know it. It is the same shim-sham as your other proof. > The fact that you won't take the put up or shut up challange indicates > that you have enough doubt that your repeating it is just a lie. The pillow guy keeps saying that he has proof and is having all of his assets taken away because he know that he lies about this. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 22:51 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === |
| Message-ID | <v1epbn$cp5s$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104518 |
On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth >>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other >>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence >>>>> arises to the contrary. >>>> >>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said. >>>> >>>> PERIOD. >>> >>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* >>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* >>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* >>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point* >>> >>> 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. >> >> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers. >> > > *Prove it on this point* > Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x if there are no x. All x means there does not exist an x that is not that condition, thus all x have any legal property if there are no x. I guess that proves that you lie. > >>> >>> *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* >>> *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* >>> *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* >>> *I will repeat this reply every day until you tell the truth* >>> >> >> But I HAVE told the truth, you LIE when you say I do not. >> >> I have proven you claim that it is impossible for an H to simulated D >> past line 3. >> >> THe fact you overlooked it doesn't make the proof invalid. >> > > It is categorically impossible and you know it. > It is the same shim-sham as your other proof. Then why was I able to post it and not have you refute it? Are you willing to put up or shut up on that fact? > >> The fact that you won't take the put up or shut up challange indicates >> that you have enough doubt that your repeating it is just a lie. > > The pillow guy keeps saying that he has proof and is having > all of his assets taken away because he know that he lies > about this. > Right, but he never posts it. I Have, you just can't find it, even though you read it, just like all the election deniers can't find the evidence of their claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 22:29 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1erj8$3o05s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104524 |
On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>
>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>
>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>
>>
>> *Prove it on this point*
>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>
> if there are no x.
>
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 }
The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
we know that more than zero of them exist.
I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
we can extrapolate the trend from there:
1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
--
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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-07 23:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1etil$3o9rj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104528 |
On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>
>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>
>> if there are no x.
>>
>
> 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 }
>
> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
> where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>
> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>
> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>
> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>
> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>
> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>
> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>
> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
is not allowed to look at its caller.
--
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 | 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1fo8o$dt8i$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104529 |
On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>
>>> if there are no x.
>>>
>>
>> 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 }
>>
>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
>> where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>>
>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>
>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>
>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>
>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>
>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>
>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>
>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>
> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>
> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>
Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and thus
needs to be defined to call just one H.
Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the
behavior of the machine described by its input.
There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine calling H
(though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that needs to be
another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words of
the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus needs to
avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 14:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1gk7h$4imh$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104538 |
On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>>
>>>> if there are no x.
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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 }
>>>
>>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D pairs
>>> where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this same H(D,D).
>>>
>>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>>
>>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>>
>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>
>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>
>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>
>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>
>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>
>> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
>> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
>> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
>> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>>
>> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
>> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>>
>
> Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and thus
> needs to be defined to call just one H.
>
> Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the
> behavior of the machine described by its input.
>
> There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine calling H
> (though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that needs to be
> another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
>
> Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words of
> the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus needs to
> avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
*The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
*The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
*The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
Am am only paying attention to your reply to this post @@@
I am not going to sift through all of your weasel words
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 }
Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
We also must mutually agree that whenever any executed H(D,D)
stops simulating its input that no H ever returns any value to any
simulated D.
--
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 | 2024-05-08 21:27 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1h8qu$flc1$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104553 |
On 5/8/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this point*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>>>
>>>>> if there are no x.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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 }
>>>>
>>>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D
>>>> pairs where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this
>>>> same H(D,D).
>>>>
>>>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>>>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>>>
>>>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>>>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>>>
>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>
>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>
>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>
>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>
>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>
>>> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
>>> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
>>> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
>>> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>>>
>>> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
>>> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>>>
>>
>> Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and
>> thus needs to be defined to call just one H.
>>
>> Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the
>> behavior of the machine described by its input.
>>
>> There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine calling
>> H (though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that needs to be
>> another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
>>
>> Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words
>> of the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus
>> needs to avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
>
> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
Nope, just proves my point.
>
> Am am only paying attention to your reply to this post @@@
> I am not going to sift through all of your weasel words
Then I will just continue to point out that you are just ignoring that
your claim have be
>
> 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 }
>
> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
> line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
>
Proven wrong, and not refuted, so just shows that you are
> We also must mutually agree that whenever any executed H(D,D)
> stops simulating its input that no H ever returns any value to any
> simulated D.
>
But that is INCORRECT and has been proven wrong.
THus, you are just proven to be a oathetic ignorant hypocritical
patholgocial lying idiot who has been proven to be DEAD WRONG.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 20:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1h9r2$9doe$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104558 |
On 5/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/8/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if there are no x.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>
>>>>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D
>>>>> pairs where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this
>>>>> same H(D,D).
>>>>>
>>>>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>>>>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>>>>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>
>>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>
>>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>>
>>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>>
>>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>
>>>> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
>>>> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
>>>> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
>>>> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>>>>
>>>> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
>>>> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and
>>> thus needs to be defined to call just one H.
>>>
>>> Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the
>>> behavior of the machine described by its input.
>>>
>>> There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine
>>> calling H (though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that
>>> needs to be another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
>>>
>>> Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words
>>> of the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus
>>> needs to avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
>>
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>
> Nope, just proves my point.
>
>>
>> Am am only paying attention to your reply to this post @@@
>> I am not going to sift through all of your weasel words
>
> Then I will just continue to point out that you are just ignoring that
> your claim have be
>
>
>>
>> 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 }
>>
>> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
>> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
>> line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
>>
>
> Proven wrong, and not refuted, so just shows that you are
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
--
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 | 2024-05-08 22:35 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1hcpo$flc1$10@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104571 |
On 5/8/24 9:45 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/8/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>>>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if there are no x.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D
>>>>>> pairs where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this
>>>>>> same H(D,D).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>>>>>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>>>>>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>
>>>>> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
>>>>> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
>>>>> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
>>>>> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>>>>>
>>>>> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
>>>>> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and
>>>> thus needs to be defined to call just one H.
>>>>
>>>> Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the
>>>> behavior of the machine described by its input.
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine
>>>> calling H (though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that
>>>> needs to be another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
>>>>
>>>> Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words
>>>> of the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus
>>>> needs to avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
>>>
>>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>>
>> Nope, just proves my point.
>>
>>>
>>> Am am only paying attention to your reply to this post @@@
>>> I am not going to sift through all of your weasel words
>>
>> Then I will just continue to point out that you are just ignoring that
>> your claim have be
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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 }
>>>
>>> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
>>> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
>>> line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
>>>
>>
>> Proven wrong, and not refuted, so just shows that you are
>
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
>
Describing yourself.
Willing to take the challange?
If you are wrong, you give this up?
Or, don't you beleive yourself?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 20:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1h9uh$dca5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104558 |
On 5/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/8/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if there are no x.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>
>>>>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D
>>>>> pairs where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this
>>>>> same H(D,D).
>>>>>
>>>>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>>>>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>>>>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>
>>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>
>>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>>
>>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>>
>>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>
>>>> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
>>>> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
>>>> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
>>>> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>>>>
>>>> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
>>>> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and
>>> thus needs to be defined to call just one H.
>>>
>>> Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the
>>> behavior of the machine described by its input.
>>>
>>> There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine
>>> calling H (though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that
>>> needs to be another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
>>>
>>> Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words
>>> of the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus
>>> needs to avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
>>
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>
> Nope, just proves my point.
>
>>
>> Am am only paying attention to your reply to this post @@@
>> I am not going to sift through all of your weasel words
>
> Then I will just continue to point out that you are just ignoring that
> your claim have be
>
>
>>
>> 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 }
>>
>> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
>> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
>> line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
>>
>
> Proven wrong, and not refuted, so just shows that you are
>
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
--
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 | 2024-05-08 22:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1hcqp$flc1$11@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104572 |
On 5/8/24 9:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/8/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>>>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if there are no x.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D
>>>>>> pairs where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this
>>>>>> same H(D,D).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>>>>>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>>>>>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>
>>>>> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
>>>>> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
>>>>> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
>>>>> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>>>>>
>>>>> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
>>>>> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and
>>>> thus needs to be defined to call just one H.
>>>>
>>>> Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the
>>>> behavior of the machine described by its input.
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine
>>>> calling H (though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that
>>>> needs to be another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
>>>>
>>>> Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words
>>>> of the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus
>>>> needs to avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
>>>
>>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>>
>> Nope, just proves my point.
>>
>>>
>>> Am am only paying attention to your reply to this post @@@
>>> I am not going to sift through all of your weasel words
>>
>> Then I will just continue to point out that you are just ignoring that
>> your claim have be
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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 }
>>>
>>> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
>>> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
>>> line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
>>>
>>
>> Proven wrong, and not refuted, so just shows that you are
>>
>
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
>
>
Describing yourself.
Willing to take the challange?
If you are wrong, you give this up?
Or, don't you beleive yourself?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-08 20:47 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1h9uv$dca5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104558 |
On 5/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/8/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if there are no x.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>
>>>>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D
>>>>> pairs where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this
>>>>> same H(D,D).
>>>>>
>>>>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>>>>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>>>>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>
>>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>
>>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>>
>>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>>
>>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>
>>>> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
>>>> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
>>>> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
>>>> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>>>>
>>>> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
>>>> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and
>>> thus needs to be defined to call just one H.
>>>
>>> Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the
>>> behavior of the machine described by its input.
>>>
>>> There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine
>>> calling H (though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that
>>> needs to be another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
>>>
>>> Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words
>>> of the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus
>>> needs to avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
>>
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>
> Nope, just proves my point.
>
>>
>> Am am only paying attention to your reply to this post @@@
>> I am not going to sift through all of your weasel words
>
> Then I will just continue to point out that you are just ignoring that
> your claim have be
>
>
>>
>> 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 }
>>
>> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
>> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
>> line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
>>
>
> Proven wrong, and not refuted, so just shows that you are
>
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
--
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 | 2024-05-08 22:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1hcrf$flc1$12@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104573 |
On 5/8/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/8/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/8/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/8/24 12:03 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/7/2024 10:29 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:51 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 10:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 9:29 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 7:30 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/2024 5:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/7/24 1:31 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Once someone has definitely proven to not be telling the truth
>>>>>>>>>>>> about any specific point it is correct to assume any other
>>>>>>>>>>>> assertions about this same point are also false until evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>> arises to the contrary.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Then I guess we can just go and ignore everything you have said.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> PERIOD.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>> *Below I prove that you are not telling the truth about this
>>>>>>>>>> point*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, It is clear you don't understand the logic of qualifiers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Prove it on this point*
>>>>>>>> Exactly how can ALWAYS: ∀x be construed as NEVER: ∄x
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if there are no x.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above template defines an infinite set of finite string H/D
>>>>>> pairs where each D(D) that is simulated by H(D,D) also calls this
>>>>>> same H(D,D).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have one concrete fully operational instance of H/D pairs so
>>>>>> we know that more than zero of them exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can adapt this one concrete instance to be the 7 shown below and
>>>>>> we can extrapolate the trend from there:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1st element of H/D pairs 1 step of D is simulated by H
>>>>>> 2nd element of H/D pairs 2 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>> 3rd element of H/D pairs 3 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 4th element of H/D pairs 4 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>> this begins the first recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 5th element of H/D pairs 5 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>> next step of the first recursive simulation at line 02
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 6th element of H/D pairs 6 steps of D are simulated by
>>>>>> last step of the first recursive simulation at line 03
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 7th element of H/D pairs 7 steps of D are simulated by H
>>>>>> this begins the second recursive simulation at line 01
>>>>>
>>>>> The one great thing that Mike did was confirm that HH can look
>>>>> into all of the details of the internal state of its simulated
>>>>> DD machine and still be a computable function. I suspected
>>>>> that I might be, yet Mike confirmed that I am correct about this.
>>>>>
>>>>> That does not work in reverse though. A computable function is
>>>>> is not allowed to look at its caller.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right, and thus D can change itself to call the H deciding it, and
>>>> thus needs to be defined to call just one H.
>>>>
>>>> Also, the question for H isn't the behavior of its caller, but the
>>>> behavior of the machine described by its input.
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing in that definition that EXCLUDES that machine
>>>> calling H (though, due to the structure of Turing Machines, that
>>>> needs to be another copy of that machine, as the Linz proof does).
>>>>
>>>> Your problem is you don't seem to understand the basic English words
>>>> of the problem, maybe because you logic is based on lying and thus
>>>> needs to avoid being to tied to actual definitions.
>>>
>>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>>> *The above is all weasel words that ignore the point*
>>
>> Nope, just proves my point.
>>
>>>
>>> Am am only paying attention to your reply to this post @@@
>>> I am not going to sift through all of your weasel words
>>
>> Then I will just continue to point out that you are just ignoring that
>> your claim have be
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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 }
>>>
>>> Any H/D pair matching the above template where D(D) is simulated
>>> by the same H(D,D) that it calls cannot possibly reach past its own
>>> line 03. Simple software engineering verified fact.
>>>
>>
>> Proven wrong, and not refuted, so just shows that you are
>>
>
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
> Liar Liar pants on fire !!!
>
>
Describing yourself.
Willing to take the challange?
If you are wrong, you give this up?
Or, don't you beleive yourself?
Or are you just chicken?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-09 12:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ |
| Message-ID | <v1ifs5$gouj$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #104576 |
Am Wed, 08 May 2024 22:36:31 -0400 schrieb Richard Damon: > On 5/8/24 9:47 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/8/2024 8:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/8/24 3:36 PM, olcott wrote: >> Liar Liar pants on fire !!! >> Liar Liar pants on fire !!! >> Liar Liar pants on fire !!! > > Describing yourself. > Willing to take the challange? > If you are wrong, you give this up? > Or, don't you beleive yourself? > Or are you just chicken? Dear Richard, please don’t feed the troll. Counterspamming accomplishes nothing. Regards -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 33 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 33 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web