Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #104381 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-05-05 12:02 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-05-07 03:38 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 643 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 12:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 13:22 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 13:43 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 14:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:30 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:56 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:56 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 19:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 20:26 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 22:11 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:57 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:14 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 09:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:01 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 19:37 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 13:31 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:04 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-07 10:12 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- typo olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 17:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 18:44 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:35 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 20:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:15 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:42 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:03 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:34 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 10:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 19:53 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 21:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 22:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 21:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 23:05 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 23:11 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 06:33 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 09:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:11 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 14:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 17:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-05 16:31 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-05 19:29 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:39 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:00 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:07 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:55 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:59 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 00:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 23:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 07:16 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 09:35 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:46 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:33 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:32 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:44 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-06 19:19 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 13:28 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 22:13 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 21:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-06 23:55 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 22:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 00:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-06 23:11 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 07:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 09:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:26 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:48 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:38 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 12:31 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 18:42 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 18:30 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:29 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:51 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 23:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:45 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:35 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:47 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-09 12:34 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:21 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 20:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 22:37 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 22:49 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H @@@ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 07:25 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 19:37 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:19 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:32 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H === immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:35 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-07 10:30 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 07:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 10:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 18:31 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 12:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:42 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-08 11:54 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 20:54 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 14:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-07 22:40 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 16:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-08 11:07 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:07 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-08 20:48 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-09 08:43 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 07:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 14:15 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:23 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H --- Mutually honest dialogue Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-10 11:09 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:43 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-08 11:59 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 08:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-08 16:13 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-09 03:38 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 10:38 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Richard tried to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:10 -0500
Re: Olcott doesn't understand logic Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 10:50 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 12:12 -0400
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 12:49 -0500
Olcott keeps on lying. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 15:27 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:50 -0400
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 16:11 -0500
Olcott thinks something isn't iteself. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 17:19 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 16:43 -0500
Olcott can't tell the difference between a machine and an infinte set of machines Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 17:59 -0400
Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 17:28 -0500
Olcott thinks One is Infinity Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 18:39 -0400
Richard seems to be a liar. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 18:39 -0500
Olcott doesn't know the difference between an element an the set Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 22:17 -0400
Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 21:21 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No, but Olcott is. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 22:39 -0400
Richard must be educated on what a termination analyzer is olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 21:49 -0500
Olcott admits to creating defintion out of his *ss Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 23:16 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-11 11:27 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 11:26 -0500
Re: Is Oclott a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 12:46 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-12 12:19 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-12 07:34 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-12 18:21 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 10:58 -0500
Olcott admits to being a liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-12 12:57 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-14 12:44 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 09:21 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-15 11:04 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:03 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 13:15 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:37 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 12:28 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:07 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 13:38 +0300
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 08:43 -0400
Richard is proven to be incorrect on a key point olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 09:53 -0500
Re: Richard is proven to be incorrect on a key point Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:03 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 13:33 +0300
embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ where embedded_H is based on a UTM olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 09:50 -0500
Re: embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ where embedded_H is based on a UTM Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:06 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 09:32 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-14 15:08 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 10:30 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 17:42 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 10:45 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 18:13 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 12:14 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 19:49 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 12:52 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 20:30 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 13:40 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-14 19:01 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-15 11:17 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:10 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 16:20 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:59 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 17:53 +0200
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 12:42 +0300
Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:27 -0500
Re: Every D correctly simulated by H never reaches its final state and halts V2 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:18 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 21:36 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 14:42 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-14 22:05 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 15:13 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 08:21 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:02 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 16:50 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:27 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 20:19 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:39 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 21:13 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 15:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 08:41 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 12:36 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:54 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 17:12 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 11:04 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-16 20:55 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 14:32 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 09:41 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:31 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 18:24 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 12:18 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 21:02 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 14:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 10:45 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-18 10:43 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 10:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:40 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 14:13 +0200
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 23:05 -0500
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 07:24 -0400
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 07:53 -0500
Re: No Message-ID therefore construed as Liar. Message ID Provided, so OLCOTT is the LIAR. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 09:13 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-17 10:26 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:38 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 12:50 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:34 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 15:43 +0300
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 12:47 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:31 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:17 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:24 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-18 10:12 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-18 10:55 +0200
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 10:27 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:31 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:56 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-15 20:26 +0200
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 06:27 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:09 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-15 11:25 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:47 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:25 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-15 11:21 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:43 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 16:26 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:04 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a patholgociat liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:16 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 13:40 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:16 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 14:54 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:34 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 17:04 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:10 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 11:57 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 18:04 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 13:33 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-15 19:29 +0000
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 15:18 -0500
Re: Is Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 17:50 -0500
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 09:19 -0500
Re: Is Richard a Liar? No! (Glad you argree) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Pathological Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-15 23:28 +0200
Re: Olcott is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:15 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-15 11:06 +0300
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:06 -0500
Re: Olcott Is a Liar! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 13:42 +0300
Nature of undecidable halting joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-16 13:20 +0000
Re: Nature of undecidable halting --- Connecting truth-bearers to their truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 10:00 -0500
Re: Nature of undecidable halting --- Connecting truth-bearers to their truthmaker Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 23:11 -0400
Re: Nature of undecidable halting Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 13:04 +0300
Re: Nature of undecidable halting ---Handling undecidable inputs olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 11:49 -0500
Re: Nature of undecidable halting ---Handling undecidable inputs Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:48 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-16 22:29 -0400
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-17 07:09 +0000
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-05-17 13:50 +0100
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 10:28 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker -- Reply to Ben's long standing objection olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:42 -0500
Reply to Ben's long standing objection --- I finally have the words olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 13:46 -0500
Re: Reply to Ben's long standing objection --- I finally have the words Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:07 -0400
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 13:45 +0300
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 12:01 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 12:11 -0500
Re: Unconventional partial halt decider and grounding to a truthmaker Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 13:22 -0400
Re: Is Richard a Liar? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-12 08:51 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-13 06:53 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 08:19 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-13 23:49 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 17:51 -0500
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-14 02:17 +0200
Re: Richard KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 19:37 -0500
Re: Olcott KEEPS LYING about Richard not refuting his statemnt. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 21:51 -0400
Re: Olcott KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:29 -0400
Re: Olcott KEEPS TRYING to get away with this falsehood Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-10 17:55 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 13:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-10 18:38 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-10 14:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-11 09:48 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 10:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 11:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 11:48 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 12:58 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 12:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H +++ Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 19:25 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-11 17:14 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-11 12:28 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-11 19:25 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 16:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-13 06:54 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 00:19 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-13 07:29 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 08:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 07:22 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-13 12:14 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 09:43 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-14 00:20 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-13 18:00 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-13 20:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-14 12:52 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-14 09:35 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-14 22:16 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-15 11:18 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 10:24 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-15 16:23 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-15 12:01 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-15 20:24 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-16 13:48 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 09:50 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-16 16:15 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-16 11:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 13:56 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-17 20:02 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 18:00 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2024-05-17 17:15 -0600
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 19:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 19:24 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2024-05-18 20:58 -0600
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 22:27 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-19 05:45 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 22:50 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 08:07 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-19 14:15 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 08:11 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 13:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-20 11:01 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-20 12:06 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 08:03 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 19:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 10:30 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 09:20 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 18:45 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-17 13:53 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-17 12:14 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-17 21:06 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-18 16:02 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 10:07 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:11 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2024-05-18 21:52 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-19 04:22 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 11:30 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 14:09 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 14:12 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 14:34 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 13:29 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 16:32 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-20 21:46 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 22:21 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 22:42 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 08:08 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 12:48 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-20 11:16 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-20 14:00 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-20 14:11 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-20 16:43 +0000
Topicality: Who really cares? (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-20 17:45 +0000
Re: Topicality: Who really cares? (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-21 11:36 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 11:28 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-21 11:36 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-21 11:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-21 20:27 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 12:10 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 13:13 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-22 10:50 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 17:27 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-21 06:47 +0200
Lying meets the standard of losing defamation cases olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 00:03 -0500
Re: Lying meets the standard of losing defamation cases Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 07:54 -0400
Lying meets the standard of losing defamation cases olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 00:05 -0500
Re: Lying meets the standard of losing defamation cases Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 07:56 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 22:35 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-21 08:52 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-21 10:56 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-21 11:36 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-21 11:48 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-21 18:10 +0200
Thought control??? (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-21 17:16 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 21:46 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 20:13 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <NoOne@NoWhere.com> - 2024-05-21 22:55 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-22 07:48 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-22 07:41 +0200
Re: Policy dispute (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-22 12:56 +0000
Re: Policy dispute (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###) immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-22 07:42 +0200
Policy dispute (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-22 05:32 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2024-05-22 18:40 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-22 15:30 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2024-05-22 16:15 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-22 11:15 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 12:12 -0700
Subway (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-21 19:15 +0000
Re: Subway (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###) "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 12:51 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 13:08 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 13:24 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 13:26 -0700
Welcome! (Was: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ###) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2024-05-21 21:13 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-22 07:40 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-23 19:29 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 17:19 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 22:45 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2024-05-19 00:48 -0600
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-18 11:34 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:44 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-18 18:01 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 12:04 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 11:31 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-18 12:49 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 11:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-19 13:23 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-20 11:14 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-18 12:32 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 12:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2024-05-18 13:01 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 12:03 -0700
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 13:20 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-19 10:53 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 07:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-19 16:48 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 09:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 13:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 13:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 15:09 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 14:29 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 15:49 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 15:34 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 19:30 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-19 15:59 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 19:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 13:33 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-20 11:35 +0300
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 12:58 -0500
Re: Every D(D) is correctly simulated by H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-20 11:21 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-20 12:56 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-20 20:57 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-21 06:49 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 00:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 07:58 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-21 13:06 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 08:44 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 21:46 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-22 10:17 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-21 08:54 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-21 16:38 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-21 21:46 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-22 10:39 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-22 09:51 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-22 19:01 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-23 13:06 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-23 08:18 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-23 21:44 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-24 11:58 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-24 12:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-24 13:25 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-25 11:14 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 07:09 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 08:54 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 13:03 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 14:16 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 13:28 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 15:23 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-25 15:09 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-25 16:21 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-26 11:57 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 08:32 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-26 19:19 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-26 11:50 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-26 13:16 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-27 11:11 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 08:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 10:10 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 09:39 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 10:58 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 10:43 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 11:56 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 11:06 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 12:37 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 14:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 17:34 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-27 17:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-27 19:12 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-28 11:21 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 10:13 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 22:04 -0400
My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 21:30 -0500
Re: My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 23:38 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 12:10 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 17:11 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-28 11:17 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 10:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 12:14 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 16:57 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 10:05 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 17:27 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 17:58 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 13:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-28 10:17 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 09:37 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-29 12:08 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 08:17 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 12:04 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:36 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-26 12:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-19 13:17 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-18 10:54 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 10:12 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-18 11:22 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-18 16:18 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-18 11:27 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-09 04:05 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 22:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-10 00:43 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 20:07 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-10 03:25 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:08 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-09 12:37 +0000
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-09 18:06 +0100
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 12:50 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### (watches state changes) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 23:46 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 13:02 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-09 22:31 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-09 22:20 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ---Airtight Mutual Accountability Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-10 10:18 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-08 19:07 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:08 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-09 10:17 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:36 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 21:40 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-07 22:52 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 22:10 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:52 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:27 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 15:37 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H <<< Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:24 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-08 11:46 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 07:57 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-08 19:11 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-08 14:16 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-09 10:24 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-10 14:53 +0200
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 21:28 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-08 11:41 +0300
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-08 07:39 -0400
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-07 10:45 -0500
Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-07 03:38 +0200
Page 29 of 33 — ← Prev page 1 … 27 28 [29] 30 31 … 33 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-27 08:52 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v3236b$29pd$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105596 |
On 5/27/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
> On 2024-05-26 16:50:21 +0000, olcott said:
>
<snip>
So that: *Usenet Article Lookup*
http://al.howardknight.net/
can see the whole message now that
*the Thai spammer killed Google Groups*
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 we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
>> stuck in recursive simulation then we also know that D never reaches its
>> own line 06 and halts in less than an infinite number of correctly
>> simulated steps.
>
> Which means that H never terminates. You said that by your definition
> a function that never terminates is not a pure function. Therefore
> H, if it exists, is not a pure function, and the phrase "pure function
> H" does not denote.
>
*I should have said that more clearly*
*That is why I need reviewers*
*Here it is more clearly*
When we hypothesize that H is a pure simulator we see that D correctly
simulated by pure simulator H remains stuck in recursive simulation thus
never reaches its own simulated final state at its line 06 and halts. In
this case H does not halt, thus is neither a pure function nor a
decider.
From this we correctly conclude that D correctly simulated by pure
function H never reaches its simulated final state at its own line 06
and halts in Less than an infinite (AKA finite) number of simulated
steps. Here is a concrete example of that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googolplex
When pure function H correctly simulates a Googolplex ^ Googolplex
number of steps of D, then D never reaches its simulated final state
at its own line 06 and halts. Pure function H halts after this finite
number of steps of correct simulation.
In other words when the *INPUT* to H(D,D) is correctly simulated by
either pure simulator H or pure function H this correctly simulated
*INPUT* never halts no matter what, thus the INPUT to H(D,D) is
definitely non halting.
*This is STEP ONE of my four step proof*
STEP TWO applies these same ideas to the Peter Linz HP proof.
STEP THREE shows how the Linz Ĥ.H sees the behavior of its recursive
simulations.
STEP FOUR shows why the behavior of the INPUT is the correct basis.
--
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 | 2024-05-27 10:10 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v3249e$28n59$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105598 |
On 5/27/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/27/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2024-05-26 16:50:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>
> <snip>
> So that: *Usenet Article Lookup*
> http://al.howardknight.net/
> can see the whole message now that
> *the Thai spammer killed Google Groups*
>
> 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 we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
>>> stuck in recursive simulation then we also know that D never reaches its
>>> own line 06 and halts in less than an infinite number of correctly
>>> simulated steps.
>>
>> Which means that H never terminates. You said that by your definition
>> a function that never terminates is not a pure function. Therefore
>> H, if it exists, is not a pure function, and the phrase "pure function
>> H" does not denote.
>>
>
> *I should have said that more clearly*
> *That is why I need reviewers*
> *Here it is more clearly*
>
> When we hypothesize that H is a pure simulator we see that D correctly
> simulated by pure simulator H remains stuck in recursive simulation thus
> never reaches its own simulated final state at its line 06 and halts. In
> this case H does not halt, thus is neither a pure function nor a
> decider.
But when you hypothesize that H is actually a "pure simulator"
(presumably one that never aborts) then you are creating a D that uses
that pure simulator, and are ONLY deriving conclusions for such a D.
The results do NOT apply for a D built on a different H, that happens to
abort its simulation,
>
> From this we correctly conclude that D correctly simulated by pure
> function H never reaches its simulated final state at its own line 06
> and halts in Less than an infinite (AKA finite) number of simulated
> steps. Here is a concrete example of that:
Right, but ONLY for a D built on such a pure simulator. It says nothing
if you build a
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googolplex
> When pure function H correctly simulates a Googolplex ^ Googolplex
> number of steps of D, then D never reaches its simulated final state
> at its own line 06 and halts. Pure function H halts after this finite
> number of steps of correct simulation.
But then H is NOT that "Pure Simulator" you were imagining above, and
thus you can't use that result.
>
> In other words when the *INPUT* to H(D,D) is correctly simulated by
> either pure simulator H or pure function H this correctly simulated
> *INPUT* never halts no matter what, thus the INPUT to H(D,D) is
> definitely non halting.
Nope. You might be able to claim that your H can't reach the final step
in its simulation, but you can't claim that the input doesn't halt when
simulated by a Pure Simulator. You have admited that if H(D,D) returns 0
then D(D) will halt.
You then try to claim, without being able to prove the false statement,
that somehow it is ok for H to give the wrong answer, but of course that
is just an admission that you logic system is broken and inconsistent.
>
> *This is STEP ONE of my four step proof*
> STEP TWO applies these same ideas to the Peter Linz HP proof.
> STEP THREE shows how the Linz Ĥ.H sees the behavior of its recursive
> simulations.
> STEP FOUR shows why the behavior of the INPUT is the correct basis.
>
And it seems ALL You steps have similar error, because you just don't
understand what you are talking about. This is the problem of trying to
work in a system you haven't actually studied.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-27 09:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v325v5$2pkb$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105599 |
On 5/27/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/27/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/27/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> On 2024-05-26 16:50:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>> So that: *Usenet Article Lookup*
>> http://al.howardknight.net/
>> can see the whole message now that
>> *the Thai spammer killed Google Groups*
>>
>> 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 we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
>>>> stuck in recursive simulation then we also know that D never reaches
>>>> its
>>>> own line 06 and halts in less than an infinite number of correctly
>>>> simulated steps.
>>>
>>> Which means that H never terminates. You said that by your definition
>>> a function that never terminates is not a pure function. Therefore
>>> H, if it exists, is not a pure function, and the phrase "pure function
>>> H" does not denote.
>>>
>>
>> *I should have said that more clearly*
>> *That is why I need reviewers*
>> *Here it is more clearly*
>>
>> When we hypothesize that H is a pure simulator we see that D correctly
>> simulated by pure simulator H remains stuck in recursive simulation thus
>> never reaches its own simulated final state at its line 06 and halts. In
>> this case H does not halt, thus is neither a pure function nor a
>> decider.
>
> But when you hypothesize that H is actually a "pure simulator"
> (presumably one that never aborts) then you are creating a D that uses
> that pure simulator, and are ONLY deriving conclusions for such a D.
>
When D correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
its own simulated final state at line 06 and halt in an infinite number
of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
steps is also not enough steps for D to halt.
--
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 | 2024-05-27 10:58 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v32730$28n59$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105603 |
On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/27/2024 9:10 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/27/24 9:52 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/27/2024 3:11 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>> On 2024-05-26 16:50:21 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>> So that: *Usenet Article Lookup*
>>> http://al.howardknight.net/
>>> can see the whole message now that
>>> *the Thai spammer killed Google Groups*
>>>
>>> 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 we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would
>>>>> remain
>>>>> stuck in recursive simulation then we also know that D never
>>>>> reaches its
>>>>> own line 06 and halts in less than an infinite number of correctly
>>>>> simulated steps.
>>>>
>>>> Which means that H never terminates. You said that by your definition
>>>> a function that never terminates is not a pure function. Therefore
>>>> H, if it exists, is not a pure function, and the phrase "pure function
>>>> H" does not denote.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *I should have said that more clearly*
>>> *That is why I need reviewers*
>>> *Here it is more clearly*
>>>
>>> When we hypothesize that H is a pure simulator we see that D correctly
>>> simulated by pure simulator H remains stuck in recursive simulation thus
>>> never reaches its own simulated final state at its line 06 and halts. In
>>> this case H does not halt, thus is neither a pure function nor a
>>> decider.
>>
>> But when you hypothesize that H is actually a "pure simulator"
>> (presumably one that never aborts) then you are creating a D that uses
>> that pure simulator, and are ONLY deriving conclusions for such a D.
>>
>
> When D correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
> its own simulated final state at line 06 and halt in an infinite number
> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
> steps is also not enough steps for D to halt.
>
But ONLY for THAT D, the one built on the pure simulator that never aborts.
That is your flaw.
The problem is that if you try to define your input "D" as being your
template, and not an actual "program", then you first need to go through
and define what you actually mean by all these terms, and the result
will not be directly applicable to the problem talking about actual
programs.
You implicitly agreed to that by not refuting the implications I gave.
So, until you actually DEFINE what all those terms mean for a
'non-program" input, i.e, your template, you can't actually say anything.
What does it mean to "Simulate" a template, especially when you reach
the point the templates diverge (the call H instruction)
You logic just unsoundly mixes the different programs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-27 10:43 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v329md$3mh0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105605 |
On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, 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 }
The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
Correct Simulation Defined
This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of the
x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 instructions
of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
emulating D.
When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less than
an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
line 06 and halt.
>> When D correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
>> its own simulated final state at line 06 and halt in an infinite number
>> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
>> steps is also not enough steps for D to halt.
>>
>
> But ONLY for THAT D, the one built on the pure simulator that never aborts.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
*I updated my words to address your persistent shell-game ploy*
The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
--
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 | 2024-05-27 11:56 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v32afl$28n58$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105608 |
On 5/27/24 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, 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 }
>
> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>
> Correct Simulation Defined
> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>
> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of the
> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 instructions
> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
> emulating D.
And how do you apply that to a TEMPLATE that doesn't define what a call
H means (as it could be any of the infinite set of Hs that you can
instantiate the template on)?
Do you mean the specific instance that this particular H generates? In
which case each H simulates a DIFFERENT input, and thus the simulations
can not be used for any other input.
>
> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
> stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less than
> an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
> simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
> line 06 and halt.
And by the previous comment, either you simulation isn't defined, or the
simulation by the pure simulator doesn't provide behavior for the
simulation by the finite simulation done by other Hs.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for any of your Hs to actually simulate the TEMPLATE D
beyond the call H instruction, as there is no defined code for H in the
template, only in instances of it.
When we accept that your simulation MUST be of the instance given, and
NOT the "template", then all you have proved is that all the finite
simulators just didn't simulate far enough to reach a possible final
state, as simulations of different imputs do not logically correlate to
each other allowing inferences across them.
>
>>> When D correctly simulated by pure simulator H cannot possibly reach
>>> its own simulated final state at line 06 and halt in an infinite number
>>> of simulated steps we can conclude that less than an infinite number of
>>> steps is also not enough steps for D to halt.
>>>
>>
>> But ONLY for THAT D, the one built on the pure simulator that never
>> aborts.
>>
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_game
> *I updated my words to address your persistent shell-game ploy*
>
> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>
And thus you need to either fix your definition of "simulation" to
define what happens when you "simulate" an infinte set of different
code, or fix your logic where you try to use logic about the simulation
of DIFFERENT specific inputs to derive behaviors of an input that is
objectively different then the simulation you are doing here.
In other words, your attempt to define your H and D as Infinite sets has
is incompatible with your definition of "Correct Simulation" and you
need to resolve this.
It seems your problem is that you are having a hard time to find the
words to express what you mean, because what you are thinking about is
just a logical contradiction, which gets revealed by trying to be
precise in the words, so you need to keep the words fuzzy.
You can't simulate the instructions of a template that don't exist
because they are variable based on the machine the template will be
instantiated on. You need to either change your definition of what
"Correct Simulation" means on the template, or define that you are
processing specific instances, and accept that this means that each
instance is a totally seperate problem, and you can't just argue across
the problems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-27 11:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v32b21$3un9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105610 |
On 5/27/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/27/24 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, 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 }
>>
>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>
>> Correct Simulation Defined
>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>
>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of the
>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 instructions
>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
>> emulating D.
>
> And how do you apply that to a TEMPLATE that doesn't define what a call
> H means
*It is completely defined and you are just ignoring this definition*
H correctly simulates 1 to ∞ steps of D with either pure function H
or pure simulator H. In none of these cases does the correctly simulated
D ever reach its own simulated final state and halt.
Do some of these instances of H play a game of poker with themselves
before or after they simulate D? Yes they do because the H/D pairs
are 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 | 2024-05-27 12:37 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v32crg$2937i$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105612 |
On 5/27/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/27/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/27/24 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, 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 }
>>>
>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>
>>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>
>>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of the
>>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 instructions
>>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
>>> emulating D.
>>
>> And how do you apply that to a TEMPLATE that doesn't define what a
>> call H means
>
> *It is completely defined and you are just ignoring this definition*
So, what instruction does the call H in D go to to be simulated?
As a template, there is no fixed H, so no instruction to look at.
> H correctly simulates 1 to ∞ steps of D with either pure function H
> or pure simulator H. In none of these cases does the correctly simulated
> D ever reach its own simulated final state and halt.
>
> Do some of these instances of H play a game of poker with themselves
> before or after they simulate D? Yes they do because the H/D pairs
> are an infinite set.
>
But, how do they correctly simulate something that isn't there?
Either they are simulating an INSTANCE of the template, in which case
each H is looking at a DIFFERENT instance, and you can't relate one
result to the other, or they are trying to simulate the Template, at
which point you have the problem that the code to be simulated hasn't
been defined, and thus you can't do what you define to do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-27 14:52 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v32oa4$6fo3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105615 |
On 5/27/2024 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/27/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/27/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/27/24 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, 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 }
>>>>
>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
>>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>>
>>>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>>
>>>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of
>>>> the
>>>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86
>>>> instructions
>>>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
>>>> emulating D.
>>>
>>> And how do you apply that to a TEMPLATE that doesn't define what a
>>> call H means
>>
>> *It is completely defined and you are just ignoring this definition*
>
> So, what instruction does the call H in D go to to be simulated?
>
DISHONEST HEAD GAMES. WHEN WE APPLY THIS SAME REASONING TO THE
LINZ TEMPLATE YOUR REASONING CALLS THE LINZ TEMPLATE NONSENSE.
> As a template, there is no fixed H, so no instruction to look at.
>
>> H correctly simulates 1 to ∞ steps of D with either pure function H
>> or pure simulator H. In none of these cases does the correctly simulated
>> D ever reach its own simulated final state and halt.
>>
>> Do some of these instances of H play a game of poker with themselves
>> before or after they simulate D? Yes they do because the H/D pairs
>> are an infinite set.
>>
>
> But, how do they correctly simulate something that isn't there?
>
> Either they are simulating an INSTANCE of the template, in which case
> each H is looking at a DIFFERENT instance, and you can't relate one
> result to the other, or they are trying to simulate the Template, at
> which point you have the problem that the code to be simulated hasn't
> been defined, and thus you can't do what you define to do.
I AM REFERRING TO THE EXACT SAME SORT OF INFINITE SET
THAT THE LINZ TEMPLATE IS REFERRING TO AND YOU KNOW IT.
WHEN EVERY ELEMENT OF AN INFINITE SET HAS THE SAME NON-HALTING
PROPERTY THEN YOUR SHELL GAME SWITCHEROO IS OBVIOUSLY A HEAD GAME.
IF YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TRIED TO GET AWAY WITH THIS FOR TWO SOLID
YEARS I WOULD NOT BE YELLING.
--
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 | 2024-05-27 17:34 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v32u94$29def$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105617 |
On 5/27/24 3:52 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/27/2024 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/27/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/27/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/24 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, 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 }
>>>>>
>>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H.
>>>>> This
>>>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>>>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>>>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>>>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>>>
>>>>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N
>>>>> of the
>>>>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86
>>>>> instructions
>>>>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating
>>>>> itself
>>>>> emulating D.
>>>>
>>>> And how do you apply that to a TEMPLATE that doesn't define what a
>>>> call H means
>>>
>>> *It is completely defined and you are just ignoring this definition*
>>
>> So, what instruction does the call H in D go to to be simulated?
>>
>
> DISHONEST HEAD GAMES. WHEN WE APPLY THIS SAME REASONING TO THE
> LINZ TEMPLATE YOUR REASONING CALLS THE LINZ TEMPLATE NONSENSE.
Nope, because Linz doesn't try to pass a Template to H, but the machine
built from the template H^.
As I said, if you assume the input is the machine built from the
template you get the ability to define the simulation, you just now get
every decider got a different input, so you can't just do the logic
across them.
YOU are the one trying to do dishonest head games
(And who has been saying that insults are unprofessional?)
>
>> As a template, there is no fixed H, so no instruction to look at.
>>
>>> H correctly simulates 1 to ∞ steps of D with either pure function H
>>> or pure simulator H. In none of these cases does the correctly simulated
>>> D ever reach its own simulated final state and halt.
>>>
>>> Do some of these instances of H play a game of poker with themselves
>>> before or after they simulate D? Yes they do because the H/D pairs
>>> are an infinite set.
>>>
>>
>> But, how do they correctly simulate something that isn't there?
>>
>> Either they are simulating an INSTANCE of the template, in which case
>> each H is looking at a DIFFERENT instance, and you can't relate one
>> result to the other, or they are trying to simulate the Template, at
>> which point you have the problem that the code to be simulated hasn't
>> been defined, and thus you can't do what you define to do.
>
> I AM REFERRING TO THE EXACT SAME SORT OF INFINITE SET
> THAT THE LINZ TEMPLATE IS REFERRING TO AND YOU KNOW IT.
Nope, Linz choose A SPECIFIC H out of the set, and gives it a SPECIFIC
H^ built from that SPECIFIC H, and then works with that set. There is
ZERO logic about infinite sets in the part that shows that THIS H can't
get the right answer to THIS input.
Only afterwords, by pointing out that the SPECIFIC H was abritrarily
chosen, and the exact same steps can be done with ANY OTHER machine that
might be considered to be a Halt Decider, does the proof go to show that
no possible H can exsit.
You just don't seem to understand how to do proof with universal qualifiers.
>
> WHEN EVERY ELEMENT OF AN INFINITE SET HAS THE SAME NON-HALTING
> PROPERTY THEN YOUR SHELL GAME SWITCHEROO IS OBVIOUSLY A HEAD GAME.
But they don't.
Every element D of the infinite set where H(D,D) answer non-halting,
will halt even though the H is incapable of simulating the input to that
point since it gives up to soon.
>
> IF YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TRIED TO GET AWAY WITH THIS FOR TWO SOLID
> YEARS I WOULD NOT BE YELLING.
>
But it is YOU who has been ignoring the definitions of the system,
apparently because you never learned them.
Apparently in 20 year of studying the proof, you never say that H and H^
were refered to as "a Turing Machine", i.e. a singular, and not as an
"infinite set" of such machines
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-27 17:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v332fc$84p2$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105619 |
On 5/27/2024 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/27/24 3:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/27/2024 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/27/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/27/24 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, 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 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>>>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H.
>>>>>> This
>>>>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>>>>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>>>>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>>>>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86
>>>>>> instructions
>>>>>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating
>>>>>> itself
>>>>>> emulating D.
>>>>>
>>>>> And how do you apply that to a TEMPLATE that doesn't define what a
>>>>> call H means
>>>>
>>>> *It is completely defined and you are just ignoring this definition*
>>>
>>> So, what instruction does the call H in D go to to be simulated?
>>>
>>
>> DISHONEST HEAD GAMES. WHEN WE APPLY THIS SAME REASONING TO THE
>> LINZ TEMPLATE YOUR REASONING CALLS THE LINZ TEMPLATE NONSENSE.
>
> Nope, because Linz doesn't try to pass a Template to H, but the machine
> built from the template H^.
>
> As I said, if you assume the input is the machine built from the
> template you get the ability to define the simulation, you just now get
> every decider got a different input, so you can't just do the logic
> across them.
>
> YOU are the one trying to do dishonest head games
>
> (And who has been saying that insults are unprofessional?)
>
>>
>>> As a template, there is no fixed H, so no instruction to look at.
>>>
>>>> H correctly simulates 1 to ∞ steps of D with either pure function H
>>>> or pure simulator H. In none of these cases does the correctly
>>>> simulated
>>>> D ever reach its own simulated final state and halt.
>>>>
>>>> Do some of these instances of H play a game of poker with themselves
>>>> before or after they simulate D? Yes they do because the H/D pairs
>>>> are an infinite set.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But, how do they correctly simulate something that isn't there?
>>>
>>> Either they are simulating an INSTANCE of the template, in which case
>>> each H is looking at a DIFFERENT instance, and you can't relate one
>>> result to the other, or they are trying to simulate the Template, at
>>> which point you have the problem that the code to be simulated hasn't
>>> been defined, and thus you can't do what you define to do.
>>
>> I AM REFERRING TO THE EXACT SAME SORT OF INFINITE SET
>> THAT THE LINZ TEMPLATE IS REFERRING TO AND YOU KNOW IT.
>
> Nope, Linz choose A SPECIFIC H out of the set, and gives it a SPECIFIC
> H^ built from that SPECIFIC H, and then works with that set. There is
When you say "specific machine" you don't mean anything like a
100% completely specified sequence of state transitions encoded
as a single unique finite string.
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
Linz claims that out of the infinite possible implementations of
embedded_H specified by the second ⊢* that none of them get the
right answer.
I would be pretty dumb if Linz took this the way the you are taking it:
"there exists a specific implementation of embedded_H that gets the
wrong answer."
--
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 | 2024-05-27 19:12 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v3340s$29def$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105622 |
On 5/27/24 6:46 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/27/2024 4:34 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/27/24 3:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/27/2024 11:37 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/24 12:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/27/2024 10:56 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/27/24 11:43 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, 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 }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>>>>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function
>>>>>>> H. This
>>>>>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to
>>>>>>> endlessly
>>>>>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>>>>>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different
>>>>>>> notion of
>>>>>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N
>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86
>>>>>>> instructions
>>>>>>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating
>>>>>>> itself
>>>>>>> emulating D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And how do you apply that to a TEMPLATE that doesn't define what a
>>>>>> call H means
>>>>>
>>>>> *It is completely defined and you are just ignoring this definition*
>>>>
>>>> So, what instruction does the call H in D go to to be simulated?
>>>>
>>>
>>> DISHONEST HEAD GAMES. WHEN WE APPLY THIS SAME REASONING TO THE
>>> LINZ TEMPLATE YOUR REASONING CALLS THE LINZ TEMPLATE NONSENSE.
>>
>> Nope, because Linz doesn't try to pass a Template to H, but the
>> machine built from the template H^.
>>
>> As I said, if you assume the input is the machine built from the
>> template you get the ability to define the simulation, you just now
>> get every decider got a different input, so you can't just do the
>> logic across them.
>>
>> YOU are the one trying to do dishonest head games
>>
>> (And who has been saying that insults are unprofessional?)
>>
>>>
>>>> As a template, there is no fixed H, so no instruction to look at.
>>>>
>>>>> H correctly simulates 1 to ∞ steps of D with either pure function H
>>>>> or pure simulator H. In none of these cases does the correctly
>>>>> simulated
>>>>> D ever reach its own simulated final state and halt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do some of these instances of H play a game of poker with themselves
>>>>> before or after they simulate D? Yes they do because the H/D pairs
>>>>> are an infinite set.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But, how do they correctly simulate something that isn't there?
>>>>
>>>> Either they are simulating an INSTANCE of the template, in which
>>>> case each H is looking at a DIFFERENT instance, and you can't relate
>>>> one result to the other, or they are trying to simulate the
>>>> Template, at which point you have the problem that the code to be
>>>> simulated hasn't been defined, and thus you can't do what you define
>>>> to do.
>>>
>>> I AM REFERRING TO THE EXACT SAME SORT OF INFINITE SET
>>> THAT THE LINZ TEMPLATE IS REFERRING TO AND YOU KNOW IT.
>>
>> Nope, Linz choose A SPECIFIC H out of the set, and gives it a SPECIFIC
>> H^ built from that SPECIFIC H, and then works with that set. There is
>
> When you say "specific machine" you don't mean anything like a
> 100% completely specified sequence of state transitions encoded
> as a single unique finite string.
Mostly.
There doesn't need to be a unique finite string, but it is a 100%
completely specified state transition/tape operation table.
Note, the sequences of states it goes through, will be a function of the
input given to that machine.
No no-trival Turing machine has a unique finite string encoding because
you can always re"name" the non-initial/non-final states generating a
vast array of possible encodings (generally an infinite number of them)
Does that surprise you? It shouldn't
Note, that specific Turing machine H^ needs to be built from the
specific Turing Machine H that it is being built to refute as being correct.
The key is we can show that for ANY machine that might claim to be a
correct halt decider, the proof establishes a formula to construct a
specific input you can give that specific machine to show that it isn't
correct.
>
> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>
> Linz claims that out of the infinite possible implementations of
> embedded_H specified by the second ⊢* that none of them get the
> right answer.
Right, and he does it by categorical exhaustive logic.
>
> I would be pretty dumb if Linz took this the way the you are taking it:
> "there exists a specific implementation of embedded_H that gets the
> wrong answer."
>
Nope, I guess you don't understand how to do a categorical proof.
If you take an specific, but arbitrary, member of the set, and show that
it is wrong. Then, since the choice was arbitrary, you can point out
that the exact same proof could be done to any other member of the set,
thus NO member of the set can be right.
The point is that when you are dealing with a specific machine, and the
specific input you are giving that machine, you have at hand a large set
of tools that let you talk about that machine,
If you try to work with all of them at once, it is much harder to get
things right, as you need to keep all the relationships between the
elements in order.
The key point is that most of the Theory provides details about the
behaivior of *A* machine, not sets of machines. After all, when you run
a machine, you run a specific machine and get a specific answer from
that machine, so to handle a set you need to look at each of them
individually anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-28 11:21 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v347mh$hf5j$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105608 |
Op 27.mei.2024 om 17:43 schreef olcott:
> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, olcott wrote:
>
> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
> 01 int D(ptr p)
> 02 {
> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
> 04 if (Halt_Status)
> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
> 06 return Halt_Status;
> 07 }
> 08
> 09 int main()
> 10 {
> 11 H(D,D);
> 12 return 0;
> 13 }
>
> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>
> Correct Simulation Defined
> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>
> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of the
> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 instructions
> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
> emulating D.
>
> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
> stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less than
> an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
> simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
> line 06 and halt.
>
We can equally well replace D with H.
When we see that H correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less than
an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for H correctly
simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state and
halt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-28 10:13 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v34sbj$l6mn$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105640 |
On 5/28/2024 4:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 27.mei.2024 om 17:43 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, 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 }
>>
>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>
>> Correct Simulation Defined
>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>
>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of the
>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 instructions
>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
>> emulating D.
>>
>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
>> stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less than
>> an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
>> simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
>> line 06 and halt.
>>
>
> We can equally well replace D with H.
Only if we want to use the DISHONEST DODGE STRAW-MAN DECEPTION
CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTAL.
My use of the point-by-pint basis of the Socratic method tosses
such attempts out as Trolling.
--
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 22:04 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v362et$2d367$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105646 |
On 5/28/24 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/28/2024 4:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 27.mei.2024 om 17:43 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, 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 }
>>>
>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>
>>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>
>>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of the
>>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 instructions
>>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
>>> emulating D.
>>>
>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
>>> stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less than
>>> an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
>>> simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>
>>
>> We can equally well replace D with H.
>
> Only if we want to use the DISHONEST DODGE STRAW-MAN DECEPTION
> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTAL.
>
> My use of the point-by-pint basis of the Socratic method tosses
> such attempts out as Trolling.
>
Mope, you don't understand how the Socratic method works in this sort of
discussion.
You do NOT qualify as the "Master Teacher" instruction disciples, so you
don't get to use the one-way version.
Maybe you should humble yourself and actually LEARN something by
listening to the questions put to you and try to seek the answers.
Fred is right, by your logic, H proves that H is non-halting, and thus
not a decider.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-28 21:30 -0500 |
| Subject | My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME |
| Message-ID | <v3640k$vg63$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105656 |
On 5/28/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/28/24 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/28/2024 4:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 27.mei.2024 om 17:43 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, 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 }
>>>>
>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
>>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>>
>>>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>>
>>>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of
>>>> the
>>>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86
>>>> instructions
>>>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
>>>> emulating D.
>>>>
>>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
>>>> stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less than
>>>> an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
>>>> simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
>>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We can equally well replace D with H.
>>
>> Only if we want to use the DISHONEST DODGE STRAW-MAN DECEPTION
>> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTAL.
>>
>> My use of the point-by-pint basis of the Socratic method tosses
>> such attempts out as Trolling.
>>
>
> Mope, you don't understand how the Socratic method works in this sort of
> discussion.
>
We are going to completely go over exactly one point at a time
and not diverge from this one point until we have complete
closure. I cannot and will not tolerate any CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT
FAKE REBUTTAL. *The subject line of the post defines this point*
--
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 |
| Subject | Re: My use of the Socratic method defined: EXACTLY ONE-POINT-AT-A-TIME |
| Message-ID | <v367vu$2d368$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105661 |
On 5/28/24 10:30 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/28/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/28/24 11:13 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/28/2024 4:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 27.mei.2024 om 17:43 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, 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 }
>>>>>
>>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H.
>>>>> This
>>>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>>>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>>>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>>>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>>>
>>>>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N
>>>>> of the
>>>>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86
>>>>> instructions
>>>>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating
>>>>> itself
>>>>> emulating D.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would
>>>>> remain
>>>>> stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less
>>>>> than
>>>>> an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
>>>>> simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
>>>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We can equally well replace D with H.
>>>
>>> Only if we want to use the DISHONEST DODGE STRAW-MAN DECEPTION
>>> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTAL.
>>>
>>> My use of the point-by-pint basis of the Socratic method tosses
>>> such attempts out as Trolling.
>>>
>>
>> Mope, you don't understand how the Socratic method works in this sort
>> of discussion.
>>
>
> We are going to completely go over exactly one point at a time
> and not diverge from this one point until we have complete
> closure. I cannot and will not tolerate any CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT
> FAKE REBUTTAL. *The subject line of the post defines this point*
>
So, what are you going to do, hold your breath until you are blue in the
face and then throw a tantrum.
The rebutal isn't "Fake", your trying to just deny it IS.
I have put forward questions that you WILL need to answer, and I will
NOT agree to any point if there are unresolved ambiquities i your
definitions and their implications,
As I have said, your refusal to rebut the implications WILL be taken as
an aggrement to them in any reply by me, and thus any claim to the
contrary resets any agreements and you will need to go back to step zero.
Obviously, the problem is that my implications are going directly
opposite some of the things you are going to try to claim latter, based
on a slight shift of the definition, which just shows that you are
planing on LYING.
So, if you want to handle one point at a time, you need to handle ALL
the questions about that point.
Maybe you don't understand how the Socratic method actually worked. The
teacher DID put out questions, but the student WAS able to ask questions
back, and was actually encouraged to do so. The goal was to make the
students think and understand.
The fact that you get stumped by the questions back, just show you
aren't really a teacher, and don't really have anything to show.
You are just misusing the method to try to define away the ability to
reject, which is why your needing to use the method in that way just
shows the utter weakness of your argument.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 12:10 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v39ja5$1l09d$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105646 |
Op 28.mei.2024 om 17:13 schreef olcott:
> On 5/28/2024 4:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 27.mei.2024 om 17:43 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, 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 }
>>>
>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>
>>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>
>>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of the
>>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86 instructions
>>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
>>> emulating D.
>>>
>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
>>> stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less than
>>> an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
>>> simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>
>>
>> We can equally well replace D with H.
>
> Only if we want to use the DISHONEST DODGE STRAW-MAN DECEPTION
> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTAL.
>
> My use of the point-by-pint basis of the Socratic method tosses
> such attempts out as Trolling.
You do not even understand your own subject. I am just showing that your
H does not halt, according to its own judgement. So, your simulating H
is not in agreement with the requirement that it should halt. If the
simulation of H would halt (as is the requirement), then D would reach
line 04. The only reason D, the parameter duplicator, does not reach
line 04 is that H does not halt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 08:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v39vjg$1mtd9$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105736 |
On 5/30/2024 5:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 28.mei.2024 om 17:13 schreef olcott:
>> On 5/28/2024 4:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 27.mei.2024 om 17:43 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, 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 }
>>>>
>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
>>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>>
>>>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>>
>>>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N of
>>>> the
>>>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86
>>>> instructions
>>>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating itself
>>>> emulating D.
>>>>
>>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would remain
>>>> stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less than
>>>> an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
>>>> simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
>>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We can equally well replace D with H.
>>
>> Only if we want to use the DISHONEST DODGE STRAW-MAN DECEPTION
>> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTAL.
>>
>> My use of the point-by-pint basis of the Socratic method tosses
>> such attempts out as Trolling.
>
> You do not even understand your own subject. I am just showing that your
> H does not halt, according to its own judgement. So, your simulating H
> is not in agreement with the requirement that it should halt. If the
> simulation of H would halt (as is the requirement), then D would reach
> line 04. The only reason D, the parameter duplicator, does not reach
> line 04 is that H does not halt.
>
This is incorrect. Only the directly executed outermost H must halt.
Everything else is merely data to this directly executed H.
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 }
The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
H correctly simulates 1 to ∞ steps of D with either pure function H or
pure simulator H. In none of these cases does the correctly simulated D
ever reach its own simulated final state and halt.
Whenever H is a pure function then H always halts.
--
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 | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 17:11 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Every D(D) simulated by H presents non-halting behavior to H ### |
| Message-ID | <v3a4ug$1o4q1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105749 |
Op 30.mei.2024 om 15:40 schreef olcott:
> On 5/30/2024 5:10 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>> Op 28.mei.2024 om 17:13 schreef olcott:
>>> On 5/28/2024 4:21 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>> Op 27.mei.2024 om 17:43 schreef olcott:
>>>>> On 5/27/2024 9:58 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/27/24 10:39 AM, 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 }
>>>>>
>>>>> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
>>>>> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H.
>>>>> This
>>>>> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
>>>>> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct Simulation Defined
>>>>> This is provided because many reviewers had a different notion of
>>>>> correct simulation that diverges from this notion.
>>>>>
>>>>> A simulator is an x86 emulator that correctly emulates 1 to N
>>>>> of the
>>>>> x86 instructions of D in the order specified by the x86
>>>>> instructions
>>>>> of D. This may include M recursive emulations of H emulating
>>>>> itself
>>>>> emulating D.
>>>>>
>>>>> When we see that D correctly simulated by pure simulator H would
>>>>> remain
>>>>> stuck in infinite recursive simulation then we also know that less
>>>>> than
>>>>> an infinite number of steps is not enough steps for D correctly
>>>>> simulated by pure function H to reach its own simulated final state at
>>>>> line 06 and halt.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We can equally well replace D with H.
>>>
>>> Only if we want to use the DISHONEST DODGE STRAW-MAN DECEPTION
>>> CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT FAKE REBUTTAL.
>>>
>>> My use of the point-by-pint basis of the Socratic method tosses
>>> such attempts out as Trolling.
>>
>> You do not even understand your own subject. I am just showing that
>> your H does not halt, according to its own judgement. So, your
>> simulating H is not in agreement with the requirement that it should
>> halt. If the simulation of H would halt (as is the requirement), then
>> D would reach line 04. The only reason D, the parameter duplicator,
>> does not reach line 04 is that H does not halt.
>>
>
> This is incorrect. Only the directly executed outermost H must halt.
> Everything else is merely data to this directly executed H.
>
> 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 }
>
> The above template refers to an infinite set of H/D pairs where D is
> correctly simulated by either pure simulator H or pure function H. This
> was done because many reviewers used the shell game ploy to endlessly
> switch which H/D pair was being referred to.
>
> H correctly simulates 1 to ∞ steps of D with either pure function H or
> pure simulator H. In none of these cases does the correctly simulated D
> ever reach its own simulated final state and halt.
>
> Whenever H is a pure function then H always halts.
Directly executed D halts, but olcott claims that the halt decider is
correct when it says that it does not halt, if the simulator is unable
to reach D's final state.
If that is true, it holds for any program, not only for D, but also for
H. So we can repeat the argument for H:
H correctly simulates 1 to ∞ steps of H with either pure function H or
pure simulator H. In none of these cases does the correctly simulated H
ever reach its own simulated final state and halt.
So, either H halts, but then the proof (by simulating it in H) that it
does not halt is invalid (and then the similar proof that D halts is
invalid as well), or the direct execution is a proof that H halts (and
then the direct execution of D is also a proof that D halts).
If not true, show how the 'correct simulation' of H reaches the final
state of the simulated H.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 29 of 33 — ← Prev page 1 … 27 28 [29] 30 31 … 33 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web