Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #105649 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-05-28 11:16 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-06-03 13:36 +0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 361 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 11:16 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 22:04 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 21:23 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 23:38 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 22:49 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-29 12:14 +0300
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 08:24 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 19:01 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 20:09 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 19:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 20:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 19:53 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 21:02 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 20:12 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 21:25 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 20:55 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 22:25 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 21:36 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 22:55 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 22:48 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-30 09:11 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:11 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-30 19:58 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 21:37 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-30 12:11 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 07:33 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-31 11:51 +0300
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-31 11:15 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-31 16:12 +0300
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 07:32 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 07:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 08:49 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-29 15:40 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 11:17 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-29 18:08 +0100
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 12:32 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 13:08 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-05-29 19:14 +0100
Two dozen people were simply wrong olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 13:31 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-29 20:17 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 15:25 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-05-29 22:54 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 16:14 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong (including Olcott) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 18:57 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 20:09 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 19:17 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 20:48 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 19:59 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 21:07 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 20:15 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 21:24 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 20:37 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 22:24 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 20:48 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 22:27 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 21:32 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 22:55 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 22:58 -0500
Re: Olcott was simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 07:30 -0400
Re: Olcott was simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 09:04 -0500
Re: Olcott was simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 21:37 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-30 09:08 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:21 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-31 11:08 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- Mike Terry olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 10:04 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-30 10:40 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:31 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 21:37 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 20:54 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 22:15 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 21:32 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 22:51 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 21:58 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 23:15 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 22:27 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 07:16 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 09:10 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 17:36 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 17:08 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 18:46 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 17:54 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 19:33 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 18:57 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 20:39 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 20:10 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 21:35 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 21:08 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 22:25 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 21:40 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 07:22 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 10:30 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 11:56 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 11:13 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 18:19 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 11:24 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 20:40 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 13:44 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 21:04 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 15:11 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 10:56 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 09:37 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:02 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:13 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 14:20 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-02 09:18 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 09:54 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 12:27 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 11:38 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 13:22 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 12:27 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 13:33 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 12:44 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 13:56 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 13:07 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 14:21 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 13:31 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 14:43 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 13:46 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 20:58 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 15:03 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 15:23 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 16:35 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 20:54 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 14:51 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 16:29 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 15:37 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 17:13 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 16:24 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 18:30 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 17:40 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 19:02 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 18:12 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 19:27 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 22:33 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 07:51 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 09:19 -0500
Re: Olcott is simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 13:22 -0400
Re: Olcott is simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 12:59 -0500
Re: Olcott is simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 14:13 -0400
DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:29 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 15:05 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 14:13 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2024-06-02 15:22 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 14:34 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 16:11 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 15:21 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 16:32 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-03 02:14 +0200
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 15:50 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 16:58 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 16:25 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 17:43 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 17:05 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 18:20 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 17:44 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 19:45 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 20:45 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 22:24 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 21:54 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 23:13 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 22:20 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 10:10 +0200
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 07:46 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 21:49 +0200
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 20:56 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 07:14 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 07:42 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 21:51 +0200
Re: Olcott is simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:34 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 11:19 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 11:13 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 11:03 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 09:41 -0500
Re: Olcott is simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 13:22 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:13 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:32 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:49 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:53 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:59 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 15:07 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 20:55 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 20:53 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 20:26 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 15:32 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-02 11:29 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 09:08 -0500
Re: Olcott is simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 13:22 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 12:44 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 08:13 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 17:35 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 13:19 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 21:51 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 20:56 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 14:49 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 11:01 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2024-06-01 10:36 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 09:00 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 11:46 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 10:58 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 12:08 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 11:18 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 12:33 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 11:46 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 16:29 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 15:35 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 17:15 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 16:27 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 18:30 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 17:37 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 19:02 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-02 09:36 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 09:58 -0500
Re: Olcott is simply wrong --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 13:22 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:16 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:37 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:51 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:57 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 21:01 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 14:10 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 15:18 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 09:37 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 07:24 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 21:53 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 15:08 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 10:02 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-02 17:55 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:08 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 14:18 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:36 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:42 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:53 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:58 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 09:40 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-02 21:02 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 11:24 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 09:47 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:24 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:39 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:55 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 14:01 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 09:50 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 14:59 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-02 21:19 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 20:54 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 20:49 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 10:57 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 10:17 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 17:32 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 10:51 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 12:02 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 18:06 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 11:22 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 12:34 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 20:54 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 19:12 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 20:52 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 19:04 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 15:01 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 23:35 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 11:49 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 18:59 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 18:41 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 13:45 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply right --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-02 09:46 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 14:48 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-31 11:30 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 10:13 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 13:03 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 08:16 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 17:49 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 13:20 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-04 11:40 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 12:46 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-31 11:22 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 10:07 -0500
Re: H is an incorrect x86 emulator immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-30 12:24 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-30 12:04 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-01 11:23 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 10:09 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 17:18 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 10:44 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 17:58 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 20:51 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 19:02 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 14:58 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 16:28 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 23:36 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 11:28 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-02 12:56 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-02 11:08 +0300
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 08:56 -0500
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:39 +0200
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:46 -0500
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:57 +0200
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 14:03 -0500
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 15:16 -0400
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-02 21:20 +0200
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-02 21:24 +0200
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 15:01 -0400
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 13:13 +0300
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 08:17 -0500
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 17:39 +0300
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 21:55 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 09:43 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-30 15:59 +0100
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 10:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-30 17:13 +0100
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 11:55 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-30 21:51 +0100
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 16:22 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- Try to prove otherwise immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-30 23:50 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- Mike Terry olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 09:46 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 21:37 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 17:20 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 10:30 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 17:58 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 12:00 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 20:50 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 14:01 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 21:32 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 15:15 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 22:59 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 16:27 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-30 23:51 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2024-05-30 21:10 -0600
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 22:33 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 07:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2024-05-30 21:48 -0600
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2024-05-30 21:52 -0600
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 23:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-31 10:41 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 07:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2024-05-30 21:14 -0600
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 22:36 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-31 10:02 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 09:33 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 07:23 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 18:07 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 13:11 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 14:23 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 21:37 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-31 16:10 +0300
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 10:44 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-01 11:20 +0300
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 09:52 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 11:08 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 18:56 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 14:55 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 16:29 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 23:36 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-02 09:24 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 09:55 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-02 11:24 +0300
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 09:04 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 13:36 +0300
Page 1 of 19 [1] 2 3 … 19 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-28 11:16 -0500 |
| Subject | D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets |
| Message-ID | <v3501h$lpnh$1@dont-email.me> |
typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
01 int D(ptr p)
02 {
03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
04 if (Halt_Status)
05 HERE: goto HERE;
06 return Halt_Status;
07 }
08
09 int main()
10 {
11 H(D,D);
12 return 0;
13 }
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
*Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,x)
*Here is the same thing applied to H/D pairs*
∃H ∈ C_Functions
∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
In both cases infinite sets are examined to see
if any H exists with the required properties.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-28 22:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v362eu$2d367$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105649 |
On 5/28/24 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
> 01 int D(ptr p)
> 02 {
> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
> 04 if (Halt_Status)
> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 int main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 return 0;
> 13 }
>
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,x)
But since for x being the description of the H^ built from that H and y
being the same, it turns out that no matter what answer H gives, it will
be wrong.
(And I think you have an error in your reference to Halts, I think you
mean Halts(x,y) not Halts(x,x)
>
> *Here is the same thing applied to H/D pairs*
> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
> ∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
> such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
Not the same thing.
∃H ∈ C_Functions
is not equivalent to
∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
as there are many C_Functions that are not the equivalent of Turing
Machines.
>
> In both cases infinite sets are examined to see
> if any H exists with the required properties.
>
Yes, but the logic of Turing Machines looks at them one at a time, and
the input is a FULL INDEPENDENT PROGRAM.
I'm not sure what you can define your computation system to be actually
based on, and what its supposed use is, since your 'decider' and 'input'
are so intertwined.
And your supposed algorithm just doesn't work when you try to make you
system "Turing Complete" by letting D have the ability to have a COPY of
H, and being able to make copies of its input, like real Turing machines
can.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-28 21:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v363js$vg63$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105657 |
On 5/28/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/28/24 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>> 02 {
>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>> 07 }
>> 08
>> 09 int main()
>> 10 {
>> 11 H(D,D);
>> 12 return 0;
>> 13 }
>>
>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>
>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,x)
>
> But since for x being the description of the H^ built from that H and y
> being the same, it turns out that no matter what answer H gives, it will
> be wrong.
>
We have not gotten to that point yet this post is so that
you can fully understand what templates are and how they work.
> (And I think you have an error in your reference to Halts, I think you
> mean Halts(x,y) not Halts(x,x)
>
Yes good catch. I was trying to model embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩
and then changed my mind to make it more general.
>>
>> *Here is the same thing applied to H/D pairs*
>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>> ∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
>> such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
>
> Not the same thing.
> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
> is not equivalent to
> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>
> as there are many C_Functions that are not the equivalent of Turing
> Machines.
>
The whole purpose here is to get you to understand what
templates are and how they reference infinite sets.
>
>>
>> In both cases infinite sets are examined to see
>> if any H exists with the required properties.
>>
>
> Yes, but the logic of Turing Machines looks at them one at a time, and
> the input is a FULL INDEPENDENT PROGRAM.
>
∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
That does not look at one machine it looks as an infinite set of
machines. I am very happy to find out that you were not playing head
games. Linz actually used the words that you referred to.
> I'm not sure what you can define your computation system to be actually
> based on, and what its supposed use is, since your 'decider' and 'input'
> are so intertwined.
>
The whole purpose here is to get you to understand what
templates are and how they reference infinite sets.
> And your supposed algorithm just doesn't work when you try to make you
> system "Turing Complete" by letting D have the ability to have a COPY of
> H, and being able to make copies of its input, like real Turing machines
> can.
>
The whole purpose here is to get you to understand what
templates are and how they reference infinite sets.
All the other issues are for another different post.
--
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 | 2024-05-28 23:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v36803$2d368$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105660 |
On 5/28/24 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/28/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/28/24 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>> 02 {
>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>> 07 }
>>> 08
>>> 09 int main()
>>> 10 {
>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>> 12 return 0;
>>> 13 }
>>>
>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>
>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,x)
>>
>> But since for x being the description of the H^ built from that H and
>> y being the same, it turns out that no matter what answer H gives, it
>> will be wrong.
>>
>
> We have not gotten to that point yet this post is so that
> you can fully understand what templates are and how they work.
But note, x, being a Turing Machine, is NOT a "template"
And H, isn't a "set of Turing Machines", but an arbitrary member of that
set, so all we need to do is find a single x, y, possible determined as
a function of H (so, BUILT from a template, but not a template
themselves) that shows that particular H was wrong.
That is basically what Linz does.
Given a SPECIFIC (but arbitary) H, we can construct a specific H^ built
from a template from H, that that H can not get right.
All the other H's might get this input right, but we don't care, we have
shown that for every H we
>
>> (And I think you have an error in your reference to Halts, I think you
>> mean Halts(x,y) not Halts(x,x)
>>
>
> Yes good catch. I was trying to model embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩
> and then changed my mind to make it more general.
>
>>>
>>> *Here is the same thing applied to H/D pairs*
>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>>> ∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
>>> such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
>>
>> Not the same thing.
>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>> is not equivalent to
>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>
>> as there are many C_Functions that are not the equivalent of Turing
>> Machines.
>>
>
> The whole purpose here is to get you to understand what
> templates are and how they reference infinite sets.
>
But the problem is that even in your formulation, H and D are, when
doing the test, SPECIFIC PROGRAMS and not "templates" as Halts is
defined on the domain of PROGRAMS.
Similarly, a "Template" doesn't have a specific set of
x86_Machine_Code_of_C_function, at least not one with defined behavior
since if it tries to reference code outside of itself, then Halts of
that just isn't defined, only Halts of that code + the specific machine
deciding it.
>>
>>>
>>> In both cases infinite sets are examined to see
>>> if any H exists with the required properties.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but the logic of Turing Machines looks at them one at a time, and
>> the input is a FULL INDEPENDENT PROGRAM.
>>
>
> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
> That does not look at one machine it looks as an infinite set of
> machines. I am very happy to find out that you were not playing head
> games. Linz actually used the words that you referred to.
while the ∃H part can create a set of machines, each element of that set
is INDIVIDUALLY TESTED in the following conditions, so, when we get to
your test H(x,y) = Halts(x,x), each of H, x, y are individual members
of the set, and we THEN collect the set of all of them.
If we try to say
∃x ∈ Natural Numbers, such that x+x = 3
we can't say that x is both 1 and 2 and thus as a set meet the
requirement. For the conditions, each qualifier select a single
prospective element, and those are tested to see if that meet the
requirement.
>
>> I'm not sure what you can define your computation system to be
>> actually based on, and what its supposed use is, since your 'decider'
>> and 'input' are so intertwined.
>>
>
> The whole purpose here is to get you to understand what
> templates are and how they reference infinite sets.
I understand how they work, the problem is you think they somehow change
the meaning of the final condition.
H(D,D) == Halts(D,D) doesn't mean that we get to look at some other
choice of H with some other choice of D to provide the D for Halts then
what H was given.
>
>> And your supposed algorithm just doesn't work when you try to make you
>> system "Turing Complete" by letting D have the ability to have a COPY
>> of H, and being able to make copies of its input, like real Turing
>> machines can.
>>
>
> The whole purpose here is to get you to understand what
> templates are and how they reference infinite sets.
>
> All the other issues are for another different post.
>
And you are just showing that YOU don't understand it, as it doesn't get
you anywhere closer to you goal.
The qualifier step is STILL done with a single specific element from
each of the sets.
Since for every element of the first set (your ∃H) there exists an input
that that particular H will get wrong, you can't use the "infinite set
of H/D" to argue that it was right.
All that does is prove that their does NOT exist an H that meets the
requirements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-28 22:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v368je$100kd$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105665 |
On 5/28/2024 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/28/24 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/28/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/28/24 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>>> 02 {
>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>> 07 }
>>>> 08
>>>> 09 int main()
>>>> 10 {
>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>> 13 }
>>>>
>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>
>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,x)
>>>
>>> But since for x being the description of the H^ built from that H and
>>> y being the same, it turns out that no matter what answer H gives, it
>>> will be wrong.
>>>
>>
>> We have not gotten to that point yet this post is so that
>> you can fully understand what templates are and how they work.
>
> But note, x, being a Turing Machine, is NOT a "template"
>
> And H, isn't a "set of Turing Machines", but an arbitrary member of that
> set, so all we need to do is find a single x, y, possible determined as
> a function of H (so, BUILT from a template, but not a template
> themselves) that shows that particular H was wrong.
>
>
> That is basically what Linz does.
>
> Given a SPECIFIC (but arbitary) H, we can construct a specific H^ built
> from a template from H, that that H can not get right.
>
> All the other H's might get this input right, but we don't care, we have
> shown that for every H we
>
>>
>>> (And I think you have an error in your reference to Halts, I think
>>> you mean Halts(x,y) not Halts(x,x)
>>>
>>
>> Yes good catch. I was trying to model embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩
>> and then changed my mind to make it more general.
>>
>>>>
>>>> *Here is the same thing applied to H/D pairs*
>>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>>>> ∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
>>>> such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
>>>
>>> Not the same thing.
>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>>> is not equivalent to
>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>
>>> as there are many C_Functions that are not the equivalent of Turing
>>> Machines.
>>>
>>
>> The whole purpose here is to get you to understand what
>> templates are and how they reference infinite sets.
>>
>
> But the problem is that even in your formulation, H and D are, when
> doing the test, SPECIFIC PROGRAMS and not "templates" as Halts is
> defined on the domain of PROGRAMS.
>
> Similarly, a "Template" doesn't have a specific set of
> x86_Machine_Code_of_C_function, at least not one with defined behavior
> since if it tries to reference code outside of itself, then Halts of
> that just isn't defined, only Halts of that code + the specific machine
> deciding it.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In both cases infinite sets are examined to see
>>>> if any H exists with the required properties.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, but the logic of Turing Machines looks at them one at a time,
>>> and the input is a FULL INDEPENDENT PROGRAM.
>>>
>>
>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>> That does not look at one machine it looks as an infinite set of
>> machines. I am very happy to find out that you were not playing head
>> games. Linz actually used the words that you referred to.
>
> while the ∃H part can create a set of machines, each element of that set
> is INDIVIDUALLY TESTED in the following conditions, so, when we get to
> your test H(x,y) = Halts(x,x), each of H, x, y are individual members
> of the set, and we THEN collect the set of all of them.
>
> If we try to say
> ∃x ∈ Natural Numbers, such that x+x = 3
> we can't say that x is both 1 and 2 and thus as a set meet the
> requirement. For the conditions, each qualifier select a single
> prospective element, and those are tested to see if that meet the
> requirement.
>
So it never was about any specific machine as Linz misleading words
seemed to indicate. It was always about examining each element of an
infinite set.
Likewise: ∃H ∈ C_Functions is about examining each element
of an infinite set. A program template specifies a set of programs
the same way that an axiom schema specifies a set of axioms.
I am very happy that the issue was the misleading words of Linz
and not you playing head games.
--
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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 12:14 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v36rlr$13000$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105666 |
On 2024-05-29 03:49:02 +0000, olcott said:
> On 5/28/2024 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/28/24 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/28/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/24 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>
>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,x)
>>>>
>>>> But since for x being the description of the H^ built from that H and y
>>>> being the same, it turns out that no matter what answer H gives, it
>>>> will be wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We have not gotten to that point yet this post is so that
>>> you can fully understand what templates are and how they work.
>>
>> But note, x, being a Turing Machine, is NOT a "template"
>>
>> And H, isn't a "set of Turing Machines", but an arbitrary member of
>> that set, so all we need to do is find a single x, y, possible
>> determined as a function of H (so, BUILT from a template, but not a
>> template themselves) that shows that particular H was wrong.
>>
>>
>> That is basically what Linz does.
>>
>> Given a SPECIFIC (but arbitary) H, we can construct a specific H^ built
>> from a template from H, that that H can not get right.
>>
>> All the other H's might get this input right, but we don't care, we
>> have shown that for every H we
>>
>>>
>>>> (And I think you have an error in your reference to Halts, I think you
>>>> mean Halts(x,y) not Halts(x,x)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes good catch. I was trying to model embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> and then changed my mind to make it more general.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Here is the same thing applied to H/D pairs*
>>>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>>>>> ∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
>>>>> such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
>>>>
>>>> Not the same thing.
>>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>>>> is not equivalent to
>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>
>>>> as there are many C_Functions that are not the equivalent of Turing Machines.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The whole purpose here is to get you to understand what
>>> templates are and how they reference infinite sets.
>>>
>>
>> But the problem is that even in your formulation, H and D are, when
>> doing the test, SPECIFIC PROGRAMS and not "templates" as Halts is
>> defined on the domain of PROGRAMS.
>>
>> Similarly, a "Template" doesn't have a specific set of
>> x86_Machine_Code_of_C_function, at least not one with defined behavior
>> since if it tries to reference code outside of itself, then Halts of
>> that just isn't defined, only Halts of that code + the specific machine
>> deciding it.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In both cases infinite sets are examined to see
>>>>> if any H exists with the required properties.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but the logic of Turing Machines looks at them one at a time, and
>>>> the input is a FULL INDEPENDENT PROGRAM.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>> That does not look at one machine it looks as an infinite set of
>>> machines. I am very happy to find out that you were not playing head
>>> games. Linz actually used the words that you referred to.
>>
>> while the ∃H part can create a set of machines, each element of that
>> set is INDIVIDUALLY TESTED in the following conditions, so, when we get
>> to your test H(x,y) = Halts(x,x), each of H, x, y are individual
>> members of the set, and we THEN collect the set of all of them.
>>
>> If we try to say
>> ∃x ∈ Natural Numbers, such that x+x = 3
>> we can't say that x is both 1 and 2 and thus as a set meet the
>> requirement. For the conditions, each qualifier select a single
>> prospective element, and those are tested to see if that meet the
>> requirement.
>>
>
> So it never was about any specific machine as Linz misleading words
> seemed to indicate. It was always about examining each element of an
> infinite set.
>
> Likewise: ∃H ∈ C_Functions is about examining each element
> of an infinite set. A program template specifies a set of programs
> the same way that an axiom schema specifies a set of axioms.
>
> I am very happy that the issue was the misleading words of Linz
> and not you playing head games.
In an inderect proof of an unversal claim the counter-hypothesis must
be about one example. Then the proof is about that specific example
until a contradiction is derived.
--
Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 08:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v37aa6$159q4$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105671 |
On 5/29/2024 4:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-29 03:49:02 +0000, olcott said:
>
>> On 5/28/2024 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/28/24 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/28/24 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>> 08
>>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
>>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>>>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
>>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,x)
>>>>>
>>>>> But since for x being the description of the H^ built from that H
>>>>> and y being the same, it turns out that no matter what answer H
>>>>> gives, it will be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have not gotten to that point yet this post is so that
>>>> you can fully understand what templates are and how they work.
>>>
>>> But note, x, being a Turing Machine, is NOT a "template"
>>>
>>> And H, isn't a "set of Turing Machines", but an arbitrary member of
>>> that set, so all we need to do is find a single x, y, possible
>>> determined as a function of H (so, BUILT from a template, but not a
>>> template themselves) that shows that particular H was wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is basically what Linz does.
>>>
>>> Given a SPECIFIC (but arbitary) H, we can construct a specific H^
>>> built from a template from H, that that H can not get right.
>>>
>>> All the other H's might get this input right, but we don't care, we
>>> have shown that for every H we
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> (And I think you have an error in your reference to Halts, I think
>>>>> you mean Halts(x,y) not Halts(x,x)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes good catch. I was trying to model embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> and then changed my mind to make it more general.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Here is the same thing applied to H/D pairs*
>>>>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>>>>>> ∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
>>>>>> such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
>>>>>
>>>>> Not the same thing.
>>>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>>>>> is not equivalent to
>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>>
>>>>> as there are many C_Functions that are not the equivalent of Turing
>>>>> Machines.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The whole purpose here is to get you to understand what
>>>> templates are and how they reference infinite sets.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But the problem is that even in your formulation, H and D are, when
>>> doing the test, SPECIFIC PROGRAMS and not "templates" as Halts is
>>> defined on the domain of PROGRAMS.
>>>
>>> Similarly, a "Template" doesn't have a specific set of
>>> x86_Machine_Code_of_C_function, at least not one with defined
>>> behavior since if it tries to reference code outside of itself, then
>>> Halts of that just isn't defined, only Halts of that code + the
>>> specific machine deciding it.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In both cases infinite sets are examined to see
>>>>>> if any H exists with the required properties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but the logic of Turing Machines looks at them one at a time,
>>>>> and the input is a FULL INDEPENDENT PROGRAM.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>> That does not look at one machine it looks as an infinite set of
>>>> machines. I am very happy to find out that you were not playing head
>>>> games. Linz actually used the words that you referred to.
>>>
>>> while the ∃H part can create a set of machines, each element of that
>>> set is INDIVIDUALLY TESTED in the following conditions, so, when we
>>> get to your test H(x,y) = Halts(x,x), each of H, x, y are individual
>>> members of the set, and we THEN collect the set of all of them.
>>>
>>> If we try to say
>>> ∃x ∈ Natural Numbers, such that x+x = 3
>>> we can't say that x is both 1 and 2 and thus as a set meet the
>>> requirement. For the conditions, each qualifier select a single
>>> prospective element, and those are tested to see if that meet the
>>> requirement.
>>>
>>
>> So it never was about any specific machine as Linz misleading words
>> seemed to indicate. It was always about examining each element of an
>> infinite set.
>>
>> Likewise: ∃H ∈ C_Functions is about examining each element
>> of an infinite set. A program template specifies a set of programs
>> the same way that an axiom schema specifies a set of axioms.
>>
>> I am very happy that the issue was the misleading words of Linz
>> and not you playing head games.
>
> In an inderect proof of an unversal claim the counter-hypothesis must
> be about one example. Then the proof is about that specific example
> until a contradiction is derived.
>
Does there exist at least one example of this when the
infinite set of Turing_Machines have been examined?
Of the infinite set of Turing_Machines does there exist
at least one H that always gets this H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
correctly for every {x,y} pair of the infinite set of {x,y} pairs?
*Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
--
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 | 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v38eqb$2foi0$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105677 |
On 5/29/24 9:24 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/29/2024 4:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-29 03:49:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> On 5/28/2024 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/24 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/28/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/28/24 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
>>>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>>>>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
>>>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,x)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But since for x being the description of the H^ built from that H
>>>>>> and y being the same, it turns out that no matter what answer H
>>>>>> gives, it will be wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We have not gotten to that point yet this post is so that
>>>>> you can fully understand what templates are and how they work.
>>>>
>>>> But note, x, being a Turing Machine, is NOT a "template"
>>>>
>>>> And H, isn't a "set of Turing Machines", but an arbitrary member of
>>>> that set, so all we need to do is find a single x, y, possible
>>>> determined as a function of H (so, BUILT from a template, but not a
>>>> template themselves) that shows that particular H was wrong.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is basically what Linz does.
>>>>
>>>> Given a SPECIFIC (but arbitary) H, we can construct a specific H^
>>>> built from a template from H, that that H can not get right.
>>>>
>>>> All the other H's might get this input right, but we don't care, we
>>>> have shown that for every H we
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> (And I think you have an error in your reference to Halts, I think
>>>>>> you mean Halts(x,y) not Halts(x,x)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes good catch. I was trying to model embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> and then changed my mind to make it more general.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> *Here is the same thing applied to H/D pairs*
>>>>>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>>>>>>> ∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
>>>>>>> such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not the same thing.
>>>>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>>>>>> is not equivalent to
>>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>>>
>>>>>> as there are many C_Functions that are not the equivalent of
>>>>>> Turing Machines.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The whole purpose here is to get you to understand what
>>>>> templates are and how they reference infinite sets.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But the problem is that even in your formulation, H and D are, when
>>>> doing the test, SPECIFIC PROGRAMS and not "templates" as Halts is
>>>> defined on the domain of PROGRAMS.
>>>>
>>>> Similarly, a "Template" doesn't have a specific set of
>>>> x86_Machine_Code_of_C_function, at least not one with defined
>>>> behavior since if it tries to reference code outside of itself, then
>>>> Halts of that just isn't defined, only Halts of that code + the
>>>> specific machine deciding it.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In both cases infinite sets are examined to see
>>>>>>> if any H exists with the required properties.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, but the logic of Turing Machines looks at them one at a time,
>>>>>> and the input is a FULL INDEPENDENT PROGRAM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>> That does not look at one machine it looks as an infinite set of
>>>>> machines. I am very happy to find out that you were not playing head
>>>>> games. Linz actually used the words that you referred to.
>>>>
>>>> while the ∃H part can create a set of machines, each element of that
>>>> set is INDIVIDUALLY TESTED in the following conditions, so, when we
>>>> get to your test H(x,y) = Halts(x,x), each of H, x, y are
>>>> individual members of the set, and we THEN collect the set of all of
>>>> them.
>>>>
>>>> If we try to say
>>>> ∃x ∈ Natural Numbers, such that x+x = 3
>>>> we can't say that x is both 1 and 2 and thus as a set meet the
>>>> requirement. For the conditions, each qualifier select a single
>>>> prospective element, and those are tested to see if that meet the
>>>> requirement.
>>>>
>>>
>>> So it never was about any specific machine as Linz misleading words
>>> seemed to indicate. It was always about examining each element of an
>>> infinite set.
>>>
>>> Likewise: ∃H ∈ C_Functions is about examining each element
>>> of an infinite set. A program template specifies a set of programs
>>> the same way that an axiom schema specifies a set of axioms.
>>>
>>> I am very happy that the issue was the misleading words of Linz
>>> and not you playing head games.
>>
>> In an inderect proof of an unversal claim the counter-hypothesis must
>> be about one example. Then the proof is about that specific example
>> until a contradiction is derived.
>>
>
> Does there exist at least one example of this when the
> infinite set of Turing_Machines have been examined?
>
>
> Of the infinite set of Turing_Machines does there exist
> at least one H that always gets this H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
> correctly for every {x,y} pair of the infinite set of {x,y} pairs?
Then why was Linz able to create, for any specific H, an H^ that it get
wrong?
>
> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
>
And since NO H, can get right the H^ built to contradict IT, that claim
is proven false.
The statement can be proven to be incorrect if we can show:
∀H ∈ Turing_Machines
∃x,y x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
y ∈ Finite_Strings
such that H(x,y) != Halts(x,y)
And that is shown, since for ANY H that you can create, we can prove
that your claim is just false.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 19:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v38fl6$1bndb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105695 |
On 5/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/29/24 9:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/29/2024 4:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-29 03:49:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>>> On 5/28/2024 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/28/24 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/28/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/28/24 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
>>>>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>>>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>>>>>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
>>>>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,x)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But since for x being the description of the H^ built from that H
>>>>>>> and y being the same, it turns out that no matter what answer H
>>>>>>> gives, it will be wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We have not gotten to that point yet this post is so that
>>>>>> you can fully understand what templates are and how they work.
>>>>>
>>>>> But note, x, being a Turing Machine, is NOT a "template"
>>>>>
>>>>> And H, isn't a "set of Turing Machines", but an arbitrary member of
>>>>> that set, so all we need to do is find a single x, y, possible
>>>>> determined as a function of H (so, BUILT from a template, but not a
>>>>> template themselves) that shows that particular H was wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is basically what Linz does.
>>>>>
>>>>> Given a SPECIFIC (but arbitary) H, we can construct a specific H^
>>>>> built from a template from H, that that H can not get right.
>>>>>
>>>>> All the other H's might get this input right, but we don't care, we
>>>>> have shown that for every H we
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (And I think you have an error in your reference to Halts, I
>>>>>>> think you mean Halts(x,y) not Halts(x,x)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes good catch. I was trying to model embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> and then changed my mind to make it more general.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Here is the same thing applied to H/D pairs*
>>>>>>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>>>>>>>> ∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
>>>>>>>> such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not the same thing.
>>>>>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>>>>>>> is not equivalent to
>>>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as there are many C_Functions that are not the equivalent of
>>>>>>> Turing Machines.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The whole purpose here is to get you to understand what
>>>>>> templates are and how they reference infinite sets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But the problem is that even in your formulation, H and D are, when
>>>>> doing the test, SPECIFIC PROGRAMS and not "templates" as Halts is
>>>>> defined on the domain of PROGRAMS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Similarly, a "Template" doesn't have a specific set of
>>>>> x86_Machine_Code_of_C_function, at least not one with defined
>>>>> behavior since if it tries to reference code outside of itself,
>>>>> then Halts of that just isn't defined, only Halts of that code +
>>>>> the specific machine deciding it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In both cases infinite sets are examined to see
>>>>>>>> if any H exists with the required properties.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but the logic of Turing Machines looks at them one at a
>>>>>>> time, and the input is a FULL INDEPENDENT PROGRAM.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>>> That does not look at one machine it looks as an infinite set of
>>>>>> machines. I am very happy to find out that you were not playing head
>>>>>> games. Linz actually used the words that you referred to.
>>>>>
>>>>> while the ∃H part can create a set of machines, each element of
>>>>> that set is INDIVIDUALLY TESTED in the following conditions, so,
>>>>> when we get to your test H(x,y) = Halts(x,x), each of H, x, y are
>>>>> individual members of the set, and we THEN collect the set of all
>>>>> of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we try to say
>>>>> ∃x ∈ Natural Numbers, such that x+x = 3
>>>>> we can't say that x is both 1 and 2 and thus as a set meet the
>>>>> requirement. For the conditions, each qualifier select a single
>>>>> prospective element, and those are tested to see if that meet the
>>>>> requirement.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So it never was about any specific machine as Linz misleading words
>>>> seemed to indicate. It was always about examining each element of an
>>>> infinite set.
>>>>
>>>> Likewise: ∃H ∈ C_Functions is about examining each element
>>>> of an infinite set. A program template specifies a set of programs
>>>> the same way that an axiom schema specifies a set of axioms.
>>>>
>>>> I am very happy that the issue was the misleading words of Linz
>>>> and not you playing head games.
>>>
>>> In an inderect proof of an unversal claim the counter-hypothesis must
>>> be about one example. Then the proof is about that specific example
>>> until a contradiction is derived.
>>>
>>
>> Does there exist at least one example of this when the
>> infinite set of Turing_Machines have been examined?
>>
>>
>> Of the infinite set of Turing_Machines does there exist
>> at least one H that always gets this H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
>> correctly for every {x,y} pair of the infinite set of {x,y} pairs?
>
> Then why was Linz able to create, for any specific H, an H^ that it get
> wrong?
>
>
>>
>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
>>
>
> And since NO H, can get right the H^ built to contradict IT, that claim
> is proven false.
>
YOU KEEP TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH CHANGING THE SUBJECT
THE ABOVE FORMALIZATION IS CORRECT
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 20:09 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v38g36$2foi0$12@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105702 |
On 5/29/24 8:01 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/29/24 9:24 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/29/2024 4:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-29 03:49:02 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/28/2024 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/28/24 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/28/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/28/24 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>>>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>>>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>>>>> 08
>>>>>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
>>>>>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>>>>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>>>>>>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
>>>>>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,x)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But since for x being the description of the H^ built from that
>>>>>>>> H and y being the same, it turns out that no matter what answer
>>>>>>>> H gives, it will be wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We have not gotten to that point yet this post is so that
>>>>>>> you can fully understand what templates are and how they work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But note, x, being a Turing Machine, is NOT a "template"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And H, isn't a "set of Turing Machines", but an arbitrary member
>>>>>> of that set, so all we need to do is find a single x, y, possible
>>>>>> determined as a function of H (so, BUILT from a template, but not
>>>>>> a template themselves) that shows that particular H was wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is basically what Linz does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Given a SPECIFIC (but arbitary) H, we can construct a specific H^
>>>>>> built from a template from H, that that H can not get right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All the other H's might get this input right, but we don't care,
>>>>>> we have shown that for every H we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (And I think you have an error in your reference to Halts, I
>>>>>>>> think you mean Halts(x,y) not Halts(x,x)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes good catch. I was trying to model embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>>> and then changed my mind to make it more general.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *Here is the same thing applied to H/D pairs*
>>>>>>>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>>>>>>>>> ∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
>>>>>>>>> such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not the same thing.
>>>>>>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>>>>>>>> is not equivalent to
>>>>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> as there are many C_Functions that are not the equivalent of
>>>>>>>> Turing Machines.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The whole purpose here is to get you to understand what
>>>>>>> templates are and how they reference infinite sets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But the problem is that even in your formulation, H and D are,
>>>>>> when doing the test, SPECIFIC PROGRAMS and not "templates" as
>>>>>> Halts is defined on the domain of PROGRAMS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Similarly, a "Template" doesn't have a specific set of
>>>>>> x86_Machine_Code_of_C_function, at least not one with defined
>>>>>> behavior since if it tries to reference code outside of itself,
>>>>>> then Halts of that just isn't defined, only Halts of that code +
>>>>>> the specific machine deciding it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In both cases infinite sets are examined to see
>>>>>>>>> if any H exists with the required properties.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, but the logic of Turing Machines looks at them one at a
>>>>>>>> time, and the input is a FULL INDEPENDENT PROGRAM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>>>> That does not look at one machine it looks as an infinite set of
>>>>>>> machines. I am very happy to find out that you were not playing head
>>>>>>> games. Linz actually used the words that you referred to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> while the ∃H part can create a set of machines, each element of
>>>>>> that set is INDIVIDUALLY TESTED in the following conditions, so,
>>>>>> when we get to your test H(x,y) = Halts(x,x), each of H, x, y are
>>>>>> individual members of the set, and we THEN collect the set of all
>>>>>> of them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we try to say
>>>>>> ∃x ∈ Natural Numbers, such that x+x = 3
>>>>>> we can't say that x is both 1 and 2 and thus as a set meet the
>>>>>> requirement. For the conditions, each qualifier select a single
>>>>>> prospective element, and those are tested to see if that meet the
>>>>>> requirement.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So it never was about any specific machine as Linz misleading words
>>>>> seemed to indicate. It was always about examining each element of an
>>>>> infinite set.
>>>>>
>>>>> Likewise: ∃H ∈ C_Functions is about examining each element
>>>>> of an infinite set. A program template specifies a set of programs
>>>>> the same way that an axiom schema specifies a set of axioms.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am very happy that the issue was the misleading words of Linz
>>>>> and not you playing head games.
>>>>
>>>> In an inderect proof of an unversal claim the counter-hypothesis must
>>>> be about one example. Then the proof is about that specific example
>>>> until a contradiction is derived.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does there exist at least one example of this when the
>>> infinite set of Turing_Machines have been examined?
>>>
>>>
>>> Of the infinite set of Turing_Machines does there exist
>>> at least one H that always gets this H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
>>> correctly for every {x,y} pair of the infinite set of {x,y} pairs?
>>
>> Then why was Linz able to create, for any specific H, an H^ that it
>> get wrong?
>>
>>
>>>
>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
>>>
>>
>> And since NO H, can get right the H^ built to contradict IT, that
>> claim is proven false.
>>
>
> YOU KEEP TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH CHANGING THE SUBJECT
> THE ABOVE FORMALIZATION IS CORRECT
>
How?
Since for EVERY H, Linz showed we can create an H^ (which creates the
Turing_Machine_Description and the Finte_Strings for the x and y) that
shows that H gets the wrong answer.
Remember, Halts is DEFINED to be based on the behavior of the actual
machine desribed by the input given to it (and doesn't have any
self-reference issues, as H^ use a copy if H, not Halts (it couldn't
since "Halts" isn't a Turing Machine, but a mathematical construct).
YOu are just proving your reckless disregard for the truth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 19:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v38gpi$1bndb$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105704 |
On 5/29/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/29/24 8:01 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions >>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>> >>> >>> And since NO H, can get right the H^ built to contradict IT, that >>> claim is proven false. >>> >> >> YOU KEEP TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH CHANGING THE SUBJECT >> THE ABOVE FORMALIZATION IS CORRECT >> > > How? > The above is the question that Linz asks and the he gets an answer of no, no such H exists. -- 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 | 2024-05-29 20:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v38ibi$2fohv$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105706 |
On 5/29/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/29/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/29/24 8:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions >>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>>> >>>> >>>> And since NO H, can get right the H^ built to contradict IT, that >>>> claim is proven false. >>>> >>> >>> YOU KEEP TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH CHANGING THE SUBJECT >>> THE ABOVE FORMALIZATION IS CORRECT >>> >> >> How? >> > > The above is the question that Linz asks and the he gets > an answer of no, no such H exists. > > So, you now agree with Linz. Good. So, you did you argue with me saying YOUR statement, which contradicts what Linz says, was right. Or, do you still think that while you can't find an actual error in his proof, he must be wrong because you want the claim that a wrong answer can be correct? That just proves your logic, and you mental state, is just inconsistant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 19:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v38ilr$1c8ir$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105708 |
On 5/29/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/29/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/29/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/29/24 8:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions >>>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And since NO H, can get right the H^ built to contradict IT, that >>>>> claim is proven false. >>>>> >>>> >>>> YOU KEEP TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH CHANGING THE SUBJECT >>>> THE ABOVE FORMALIZATION IS CORRECT >>>> >>> >>> How? >>> >> >> The above is the question that Linz asks and the he gets >> an answer of no, no such H exists. >> >> > > So, you now agree with Linz. Good. > I said that Linz says that. The point is that the Linz template examines an infinite set of Turing Machine / input pairs the same way my H/D template references an infinite set of C function / input pairs. -- 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 | 2024-05-29 21:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v38j78$2foi0$13@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105710 |
On 5/29/24 8:53 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/29/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/29/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/29/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/29/24 8:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >>>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>>>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions >>>>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And since NO H, can get right the H^ built to contradict IT, that >>>>>> claim is proven false. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> YOU KEEP TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH CHANGING THE SUBJECT >>>>> THE ABOVE FORMALIZATION IS CORRECT >>>>> >>>> >>>> How? >>>> >>> >>> The above is the question that Linz asks and the he gets >>> an answer of no, no such H exists. >>> >>> >> >> So, you now agree with Linz. Good. >> > > I said that Linz says that. The point is that the Linz > template examines an infinite set of Turing Machine / input > pairs the same way my H/D template references an infinite set > of C function / input pairs. > The difference is, In Linz's formulation, each machine is INDIVIDUALLY EVALUTED with its inputs, and a specific input is shown to exist for each one that makes it wrong. YOU try o merge them all together to claim that since none of them reach a final state in its partial simulation (for those that answer) that means that all the inputs represented non-halting machines, THAT is just invalid logic. You just don't understand how to do logic with qualifiers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 20:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v38jqc$1c8ir$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105712 |
On 5/29/2024 8:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/29/24 8:53 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/29/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/29/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/29/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/29/24 8:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >>>>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>>>>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions >>>>>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And since NO H, can get right the H^ built to contradict IT, that >>>>>>> claim is proven false. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> YOU KEEP TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH CHANGING THE SUBJECT >>>>>> THE ABOVE FORMALIZATION IS CORRECT >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How? >>>>> >>>> >>>> The above is the question that Linz asks and the he gets >>>> an answer of no, no such H exists. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> So, you now agree with Linz. Good. >>> >> >> I said that Linz says that. The point is that the Linz >> template examines an infinite set of Turing Machine / input >> pairs the same way my H/D template references an infinite set >> of C function / input pairs. >> > > The difference is, In Linz's formulation, each machine is INDIVIDUALLY > EVALUTED with its inputs, *No that is never the case* When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn The entire category of every decider/input pair is examined ALL AT ONCE. No one is dumb enough to look at each element of an infinite set one at a time because they know this takes literally forever. -- 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 | 2024-05-29 21:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v38khd$2foi0$16@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105714 |
On 5/29/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/29/2024 8:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/29/24 8:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/29/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/29/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/29/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/29/24 8:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >>>>>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>>>>>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions >>>>>>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>>>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And since NO H, can get right the H^ built to contradict IT, >>>>>>>> that claim is proven false. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> YOU KEEP TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH CHANGING THE SUBJECT >>>>>>> THE ABOVE FORMALIZATION IS CORRECT >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> How? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The above is the question that Linz asks and the he gets >>>>> an answer of no, no such H exists. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> So, you now agree with Linz. Good. >>>> >>> >>> I said that Linz says that. The point is that the Linz >>> template examines an infinite set of Turing Machine / input >>> pairs the same way my H/D template references an infinite set >>> of C function / input pairs. >>> >> >> The difference is, In Linz's formulation, each machine is INDIVIDUALLY >> EVALUTED with its inputs, > > > *No that is never the case* Of course it is. > > When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ > Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn > > The entire category of every decider/input pair is examined ALL AT ONCE. > No one is dumb enough to look at each element of an infinite set > one at a time because they know this takes literally forever. > Why do you say that? How do you run ALL the machines at once? Maybe you can think of all of them running INDIVIDUALLY in parrallel, but each machine does what that machine does with the input that THAT machine was given. You just don't understand what you are talking about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 20:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v38mb0$1ggjs$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105717 |
On 5/29/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/29/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/29/2024 8:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/29/24 8:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/29/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/29/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/29/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/29/24 8:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >>>>>>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>>>>>>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions >>>>>>>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>>>>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And since NO H, can get right the H^ built to contradict IT, >>>>>>>>> that claim is proven false. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> YOU KEEP TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH CHANGING THE SUBJECT >>>>>>>> THE ABOVE FORMALIZATION IS CORRECT >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The above is the question that Linz asks and the he gets >>>>>> an answer of no, no such H exists. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, you now agree with Linz. Good. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I said that Linz says that. The point is that the Linz >>>> template examines an infinite set of Turing Machine / input >>>> pairs the same way my H/D template references an infinite set >>>> of C function / input pairs. >>>> >>> >>> The difference is, In Linz's formulation, each machine is >>> INDIVIDUALLY EVALUTED with its inputs, >> >> >> *No that is never the case* > > > Of course it is. > > >> >> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >> >> The entire category of every decider/input pair is examined ALL AT ONCE. >> No one is dumb enough to look at each element of an infinite set >> one at a time because they know this takes literally forever. >> > > Why do you say that? > > How do you run ALL the machines at once? > When the category is examined all at once then there is no need to look at each individual element. > Maybe you can think of all of them running INDIVIDUALLY in parrallel, > but each machine does what that machine does with the input that THAT > machine was given. > > You just don't understand what you are talking about. > Existential quantification always looks at all the elements of an infinite set. -- 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 | 2024-05-29 22:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v38o1v$2fohv$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105720 |
On 5/29/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/29/2024 8:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/29/24 9:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/29/2024 8:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/29/24 8:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/29/2024 7:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/29/24 8:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/29/2024 7:09 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/29/24 8:01 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2024 6:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >>>>>>>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>>>>>>>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions >>>>>>>>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>>>>>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And since NO H, can get right the H^ built to contradict IT, >>>>>>>>>> that claim is proven false. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> YOU KEEP TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH CHANGING THE SUBJECT >>>>>>>>> THE ABOVE FORMALIZATION IS CORRECT >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The above is the question that Linz asks and the he gets >>>>>>> an answer of no, no such H exists. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, you now agree with Linz. Good. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I said that Linz says that. The point is that the Linz >>>>> template examines an infinite set of Turing Machine / input >>>>> pairs the same way my H/D template references an infinite set >>>>> of C function / input pairs. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The difference is, In Linz's formulation, each machine is >>>> INDIVIDUALLY EVALUTED with its inputs, >>> >>> >>> *No that is never the case* >> >> >> Of course it is. >> >> >>> >>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩ >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞ >>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn >>> >>> The entire category of every decider/input pair is examined ALL AT ONCE. >>> No one is dumb enough to look at each element of an infinite set >>> one at a time because they know this takes literally forever. >>> >> >> Why do you say that? >> >> How do you run ALL the machines at once? >> > > When the category is examined all at once then there is no need > to look at each individual element. So, which one or ones gave the correct answer for their input? Since for EVERY H^ (H^) based on an H that goes to its state qn when it is applied to (H^) (H^), that H^ (H^) will also go to qn and halt, and thus that H was wrong. > >> Maybe you can think of all of them running INDIVIDUALLY in parrallel, >> but each machine does what that machine does with the input that THAT >> machine was given. >> >> You just don't understand what you are talking about. >> > > Existential quantification always looks at all the elements > of an infinite set. > Ok, and for EVERY H(H^,H^) that goes to qn creates an H^ (H^) that halts, and thus ALL are wrong, so there doesn't exist ANY that are right. Actually "Existential" qualifications look for just at least one example, they don't need to find all of them. The issue is that this problem has both an existential and universal qualifications. Since each H needs to handle ALL inputs, that includes the "pathological" input H^ that makes it wrong and thus no H to meet the requirements exist. You are talking Turing machine and the actual Halting problem so none of this H can't simulate its input to a final state, the ACTUAL QUESTION in you description said "Halts" which is SPECIFICAL about the actual behavior of the actual specific machine given to it. So, you are CATEGORIALLY incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 21:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v38on0$1grj4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105722 |
On 5/29/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/29/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >> When the category is examined all at once then there is no need >> to look at each individual element. > > So, which one or ones gave the correct answer for their input? > *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines_Descriptions* ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) When we formalize it that way then some simulating halt deciders get the correct answer. *Everyone else implicitly assumes this incorrect formalization* ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines* ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) -- 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 | 2024-05-29 22:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v38pqr$2fohv$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105725 |
On 5/29/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/29/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/29/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>> When the category is examined all at once then there is no need >>> to look at each individual element. >> >> So, which one or ones gave the correct answer for their input? >> > > *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* > ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines > ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines_Descriptions* > ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings > such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) > > When we formalize it that way then some simulating halt deciders > get the correct answer. > > *Everyone else implicitly assumes this incorrect formalization* > ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines > ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines* > ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings > such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) > > Nope. You just don't understand the meaning of a "Description" in the problem. H is asked about a specific Turing Machine, by passing it a complete representation of that machine in symbolic form. Just as for most problems, other than those which happen to be defined in terms of the same symbol set as the Turing Machie uses.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 19 [1] 2 3 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web