Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #105649 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-05-28 11:16 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-06-03 13:36 +0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 361 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 11:16 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 22:04 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 21:23 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-28 23:38 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-28 22:49 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-29 12:14 +0300
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 08:24 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 19:01 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 20:09 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 19:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 20:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 19:53 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 21:02 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 20:12 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 21:25 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 20:55 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 22:25 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 21:36 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 22:55 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 22:48 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-30 09:11 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:11 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-30 19:58 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 21:37 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-30 12:11 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 07:33 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-31 11:51 +0300
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-31 11:15 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-31 16:12 +0300
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 07:32 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 07:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 08:49 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-29 15:40 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 11:17 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-29 18:08 +0100
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 12:32 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 13:08 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-05-29 19:14 +0100
Two dozen people were simply wrong olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 13:31 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-05-29 20:17 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 15:25 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-05-29 22:54 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 16:14 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong (including Olcott) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 18:57 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 20:09 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 19:17 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 20:48 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 19:59 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 21:07 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 20:15 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 21:24 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 20:37 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 22:24 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 20:48 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 22:27 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 21:32 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 22:55 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-29 22:58 -0500
Re: Olcott was simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 07:30 -0400
Re: Olcott was simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 09:04 -0500
Re: Olcott was simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 21:37 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-05-30 09:08 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:21 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-31 11:08 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- Mike Terry olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 10:04 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-30 10:40 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 08:31 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 21:37 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 20:54 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 22:15 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 21:32 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 22:51 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 21:58 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 23:15 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 22:27 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 07:16 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 09:10 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 17:36 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 17:08 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 18:46 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 17:54 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 19:33 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 18:57 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 20:39 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 20:10 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 21:35 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 21:08 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 22:25 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 21:40 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 07:22 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 10:30 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 11:56 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 11:13 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 18:19 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 11:24 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 20:40 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 13:44 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 21:04 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 15:11 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 10:56 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 09:37 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:02 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:13 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 14:20 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-02 09:18 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 09:54 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 12:27 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 11:38 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 13:22 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 12:27 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 13:33 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 12:44 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 13:56 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 13:07 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 14:21 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 13:31 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 14:43 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 13:46 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 20:58 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 15:03 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 15:23 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 16:35 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 20:54 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 14:51 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 16:29 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 15:37 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 17:13 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 16:24 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 18:30 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 17:40 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 19:02 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 18:12 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 19:27 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 22:33 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 07:51 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 09:19 -0500
Re: Olcott is simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 13:22 -0400
Re: Olcott is simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 12:59 -0500
Re: Olcott is simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 14:13 -0400
DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:29 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 15:05 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 14:13 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2024-06-02 15:22 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 14:34 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 16:11 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 15:21 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 16:32 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-03 02:14 +0200
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 15:50 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 16:58 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 16:25 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 17:43 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 17:05 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 18:20 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 17:44 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 19:45 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 20:45 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 22:24 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 21:54 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 23:13 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 22:20 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 10:10 +0200
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 07:46 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 21:49 +0200
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 20:56 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 07:14 -0400
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 07:42 -0500
Re: DD correctly simulated by HH cannot possible halt --- Try to prove otherwise --- x86 DD "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 21:51 +0200
Re: Olcott is simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:34 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 11:19 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 11:13 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 11:03 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 09:41 -0500
Re: Olcott is simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 13:22 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:13 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:32 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:49 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:53 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:59 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 15:07 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 20:55 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 20:53 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 20:26 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 15:32 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-02 11:29 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 09:08 -0500
Re: Olcott is simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 13:22 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 12:44 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 08:13 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 17:35 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 13:19 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 21:51 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 20:56 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 14:49 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 11:01 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Wasell <wasell@example.com> - 2024-06-01 10:36 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 09:00 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 11:46 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 10:58 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 12:08 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 11:18 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 12:33 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 11:46 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 16:29 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 15:35 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 17:15 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 16:27 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 18:30 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 17:37 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 19:02 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-02 09:36 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 09:58 -0500
Re: Olcott is simply wrong --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 13:22 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:16 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:37 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:51 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:57 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 21:01 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 14:10 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 15:18 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 09:37 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 07:24 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 21:53 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 15:08 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 10:02 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-02 17:55 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:08 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 14:18 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:36 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:42 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:53 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:58 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 09:40 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-02 21:02 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 11:24 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 09:47 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:24 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:39 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:55 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 14:01 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 09:50 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 14:59 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-02 21:19 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down --- canonical immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 20:54 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 20:49 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 10:57 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 10:17 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 17:32 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 10:51 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 12:02 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 18:06 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 11:22 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 12:34 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 20:54 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 19:12 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 20:52 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 19:04 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 15:01 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 23:35 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 11:49 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 18:59 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 18:41 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 13:45 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply right --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-02 09:46 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise --- pinned down immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 14:48 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-31 11:30 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 10:13 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 13:03 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 08:16 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 17:49 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 13:20 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-04 11:40 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 12:46 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-31 11:22 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 10:07 -0500
Re: H is an incorrect x86 emulator immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-30 12:24 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-30 12:04 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-01 11:23 +0300
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 10:09 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 17:18 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 10:44 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-01 17:58 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 20:51 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 19:02 +0000
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 14:58 -0500
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 16:28 -0400
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 23:36 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 11:28 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-02 12:56 +0200
Re: Two dozen people were simply wrong -- Only basis for rebuttal in the last 3 years Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-02 11:08 +0300
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 08:56 -0500
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:39 +0200
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 13:46 -0500
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-02 20:57 +0200
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 14:03 -0500
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 15:16 -0400
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-02 21:20 +0200
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-02 21:24 +0200
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 15:01 -0400
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 13:13 +0300
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 08:17 -0500
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 17:39 +0300
Re: Deciders are ONLY accountable for their actual inputs --- "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 21:55 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 09:43 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-30 15:59 +0100
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 10:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-30 17:13 +0100
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 11:55 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-05-30 21:51 +0100
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- Try to prove otherwise olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 16:22 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- Try to prove otherwise immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-30 23:50 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- Mike Terry olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 09:46 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 21:37 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 17:20 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 10:30 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 17:58 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 12:00 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 20:50 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 14:01 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 21:32 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 15:15 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-30 22:59 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 16:27 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-30 23:51 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2024-05-30 21:10 -0600
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 22:33 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 07:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Jeff Barnett <jbb@notatt.com> - 2024-05-30 21:48 -0600
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2024-05-30 21:52 -0600
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 23:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-05-31 10:41 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 07:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2024-05-30 21:14 -0600
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-30 22:36 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-05-31 10:02 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 09:33 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-31 07:23 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 18:07 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 13:11 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 14:23 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets --- deciders Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-05-30 21:37 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-05-31 16:10 +0300
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-05-31 10:44 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-01 11:20 +0300
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 09:52 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 11:08 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-01 18:56 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-01 14:55 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-01 16:29 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-01 23:36 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-02 09:24 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 09:55 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-02 11:24 +0300
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 09:04 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly halt --- templates and infinite sets Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 13:36 +0300
Page 2 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 19 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 22:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v38suu$1hf5c$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105726 |
On 5/29/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 5/29/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 5/29/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/29/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> When the category is examined all at once then there is no need >>>> to look at each individual element. >>> >>> So, which one or ones gave the correct answer for their input? >>> >> >> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines_Descriptions* >> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >> >> When we formalize it that way then some simulating halt deciders >> get the correct answer. >> >> *Everyone else implicitly assumes this incorrect formalization* >> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines* >> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >> >> > > Nope. > > You just don't understand the meaning of a "Description" in the problem. > I have an OCD/Aspergers degree of single-minded focus. 20 years ago I tested 50% above normal on the Aspergers test. Because I have focused this concentration of having empathy I now score 50% below normal on Asperger tests. The issue is that everyone else has not paid close enough attention to what a decider does. *A deciders compute the mapping* FROM ITS INPUTS FROM ITS INPUTS FROM ITS INPUTS FROM ITS INPUTS FROM ITS INPUTS *to it own accept or reject state* *Deciders cannot take* ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS *Deciders can only take* FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS -- 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 | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 09:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v39fsc$2grvb$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105728 |
Am Wed, 29 May 2024 22:48:45 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 5/29/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/29/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/29/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/29/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> When the category is examined all at once then there is no need >>>>> to look at each individual element. >>>> So, which one or ones gave the correct answer for their input? >>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines_Descriptions* >>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>> >>> When we formalize it that way then some simulating halt deciders >>> get the correct answer. >>> >>> *Everyone else implicitly assumes this incorrect formalization* >>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines* >>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>> >> Nope. >> You just don't understand the meaning of a "Description" in the problem. >> > I have an OCD/Aspergers degree of single-minded focus. Checks out. > *A deciders compute the mapping* > FROM ITS INPUTS > *to it own accept or reject state* > > *Deciders cannot take* > ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS > > *Deciders can only take* > FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS Poetic. What is an „actual Turing machine”? -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 08:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v39ttg$1mtd9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105733 |
On 5/30/2024 4:11 AM, joes wrote: > Am Wed, 29 May 2024 22:48:45 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 5/29/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/29/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/29/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/29/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> When the category is examined all at once then there is no need >>>>>> to look at each individual element. >>>>> So, which one or ones gave the correct answer for their input? > >>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines_Descriptions* >>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>> >>>> When we formalize it that way then some simulating halt deciders >>>> get the correct answer. >>>> >>>> *Everyone else implicitly assumes this incorrect formalization* >>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines* >>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>> >>> Nope. >>> You just don't understand the meaning of a "Description" in the problem. >>> >> I have an OCD/Aspergers degree of single-minded focus. > Checks out. > >> *A deciders compute the mapping* >> FROM ITS INPUTS >> *to it own accept or reject state* >> >> *Deciders cannot take* >> ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS >> >> *Deciders can only take* >> FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS > Poetic. > What is an „actual Turing machine”? > *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines ∀x ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) Every H is an actual Turing_Machine Every x is a Turing_Machine_Description thus not an actual Turing_Machine -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | immibis <news@immibis.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 19:58 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v3aenk$1ptlh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105743 |
On 30/05/24 15:11, olcott wrote: > On 5/30/2024 4:11 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Wed, 29 May 2024 22:48:45 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> *A deciders compute the mapping* >>> FROM ITS INPUTS >>> *to it own accept or reject state* >>> >>> *Deciders cannot take* >>> ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS >>> >>> *Deciders can only take* >>> FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS >> Poetic. >> What is an „actual Turing machine”? >> > > *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* > ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines > ∀x ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions > ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings > such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) > > Every H is an actual Turing_Machine > > Every x is a Turing_Machine_Description > thus not an actual Turing_Machine > > ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings such that H(DescriptionOf(x),y) = Halts(x,y)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 21:37 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3b9ku$2im02$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105743 |
On 5/30/24 9:11 AM, olcott wrote: > On 5/30/2024 4:11 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Wed, 29 May 2024 22:48:45 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 5/29/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/29/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/29/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/29/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> When the category is examined all at once then there is no need >>>>>>> to look at each individual element. >>>>>> So, which one or ones gave the correct answer for their input? >> >>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>>> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines_Descriptions* >>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>>> >>>>> When we formalize it that way then some simulating halt deciders >>>>> get the correct answer. >>>>> >>>>> *Everyone else implicitly assumes this incorrect formalization* >>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>>> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines* >>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>>> >>>> Nope. >>>> You just don't understand the meaning of a "Description" in the >>>> problem. >>>> >>> I have an OCD/Aspergers degree of single-minded focus. >> Checks out. >> >>> *A deciders compute the mapping* >>> FROM ITS INPUTS >>> *to it own accept or reject state* >>> >>> *Deciders cannot take* >>> ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS >>> >>> *Deciders can only take* >>> FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS >> Poetic. >> What is an „actual Turing machine”? >> > > *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* > ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines > ∀x ∈ Turing_Machine_Descriptions > ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings > such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) > > Every H is an actual Turing_Machine > > Every x is a Turing_Machine_Description > thus not an actual Turing_Machine > But represents one, and thus we can determine the actual behavior of that Turing Machine so desceribed. And, if you actually READ what Linz says, his formalation would be: For Halting to be computable we must have: ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines such that ∀M ∈ Turing_Machines, with a description Wm, and ∀w ∈ Finite_Strings such that H(Wm,w) = Halts(M,w) Try to read his work a bit betetr. He describes FIRST having a Turing Machine M to be decided on, and THEN converts it to Wm to give it to the decider. SKippig steps is not allowed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | immibis <news@immibis.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 12:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v39jcc$1ktqb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105728 |
On 30/05/24 05:48, olcott wrote: > On 5/29/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/29/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/29/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/29/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> When the category is examined all at once then there is no need >>>>> to look at each individual element. >>>> >>>> So, which one or ones gave the correct answer for their input? >>>> >>> >>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines_Descriptions* >>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>> >>> When we formalize it that way then some simulating halt deciders >>> get the correct answer. >>> >>> *Everyone else implicitly assumes this incorrect formalization* >>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines* >>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>> >>> >> >> Nope. >> >> You just don't understand the meaning of a "Description" in the problem. >> > > A deciders compute the mapping FROM ITS INPUTS > to it own accept or reject state > Deciders cannot take ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS > Deciders can only take FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS > If you want to be pedantic, you made the mistake. It's actually H(DescriptionOf(x),y) = Halts(x,y) DescriptionOf is an injective function that converts Turing machines into finite strings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 07:33 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v39o5f$2h667$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105737 |
On 5/30/24 6:11 AM, immibis wrote: > On 30/05/24 05:48, olcott wrote: >> On 5/29/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 5/29/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/29/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/29/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> When the category is examined all at once then there is no need >>>>>> to look at each individual element. >>>>> >>>>> So, which one or ones gave the correct answer for their input? >>>>> >>>> >>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines_Descriptions* >>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>> >>>> When we formalize it that way then some simulating halt deciders >>>> get the correct answer. >>>> >>>> *Everyone else implicitly assumes this incorrect formalization* >>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines* >>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Nope. >>> >>> You just don't understand the meaning of a "Description" in the problem. >>> >> >> A deciders compute the mapping FROM ITS INPUTS >> to it own accept or reject state >> Deciders cannot take ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS >> Deciders can only take FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS >> > > If you want to be pedantic, you made the mistake. > It's actually H(DescriptionOf(x),y) = Halts(x,y) > DescriptionOf is an injective function that converts Turing machines > into finite strings. OR in his formal language: ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines, and for ∀M ∈ Turing_Machines, which have a description Wm, and ∀w ∈ Finite_Strings such that H(Wm,w) = Halts(M,w) The problem is that there doesn't exist a FUNCTION "Description" as one machine can have an potentially infinite number of descriptions. It is more that there is an inverse function, Described where we could say that M = Described(Wm)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-31 11:51 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v3c32a$25inu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105742 |
On 2024-05-30 11:33:03 +0000, Richard Damon said: > On 5/30/24 6:11 AM, immibis wrote: >> On 30/05/24 05:48, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/29/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/29/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/29/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/29/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> When the category is examined all at once then there is no need >>>>>>> to look at each individual element. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, which one or ones gave the correct answer for their input? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>>> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines_Descriptions* >>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>>> >>>>> When we formalize it that way then some simulating halt deciders >>>>> get the correct answer. >>>>> >>>>> *Everyone else implicitly assumes this incorrect formalization* >>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>>> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines* >>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope. >>>> >>>> You just don't understand the meaning of a "Description" in the problem. >>>> >>> >>> A deciders compute the mapping FROM ITS INPUTS >>> to it own accept or reject state >>> Deciders cannot take ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS >>> Deciders can only take FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS >>> >> >> If you want to be pedantic, you made the mistake. >> It's actually H(DescriptionOf(x),y) = Halts(x,y) >> DescriptionOf is an injective function that converts Turing machines >> into finite strings. > > OR in his formal language: > > > ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines, and for > ∀M ∈ Turing_Machines, which have a description Wm, and > ∀w ∈ Finite_Strings > such that H(Wm,w) = Halts(M,w) > > The problem is that there doesn't exist a FUNCTION "Description" as one > machine can have an potentially infinite number of descriptions. At this point we may assume the axiom of choice. > It is more that there is an inverse function, Described where we could > say that M = Described(Wm) -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | immibis <news@immibis.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-31 11:15 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v3c4el$25nvj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105807 |
On 31/05/24 10:51, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-05-30 11:33:03 +0000, Richard Damon said: > >> On 5/30/24 6:11 AM, immibis wrote: >>> On 30/05/24 05:48, olcott wrote: >>>> On 5/29/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 5/29/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 5/29/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/29/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> When the category is examined all at once then there is no need >>>>>>>> to look at each individual element. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, which one or ones gave the correct answer for their input? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>>>> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines_Descriptions* >>>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>>>> >>>>>> When we formalize it that way then some simulating halt deciders >>>>>> get the correct answer. >>>>>> >>>>>> *Everyone else implicitly assumes this incorrect formalization* >>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>>>> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines* >>>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope. >>>>> >>>>> You just don't understand the meaning of a "Description" in the >>>>> problem. >>>>> >>>> >>>> A deciders compute the mapping FROM ITS INPUTS >>>> to it own accept or reject state >>>> Deciders cannot take ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS >>>> Deciders can only take FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS >>>> >>> >>> If you want to be pedantic, you made the mistake. >>> It's actually H(DescriptionOf(x),y) = Halts(x,y) >>> DescriptionOf is an injective function that converts Turing machines >>> into finite strings. >> >> OR in his formal language: >> >> >> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines, and for >> ∀M ∈ Turing_Machines, which have a description Wm, and >> ∀w ∈ Finite_Strings >> such that H(Wm,w) = Halts(M,w) >> >> The problem is that there doesn't exist a FUNCTION "Description" as >> one machine can have an potentially infinite number of descriptions. > > At this point we may assume the axiom of choice. > >> It is more that there is an inverse function, Described where we could >> say that M = Described(Wm) > > also the function "Description" doesn't have to 'know' all of the descriptions - one per machine is enough.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-31 16:12 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v3cici$284kt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105808 |
On 2024-05-31 09:15:01 +0000, immibis said: > On 31/05/24 10:51, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-05-30 11:33:03 +0000, Richard Damon said: >> >>> On 5/30/24 6:11 AM, immibis wrote: >>>> On 30/05/24 05:48, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 5/29/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 5/29/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/29/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/29/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> When the category is examined all at once then there is no need >>>>>>>>> to look at each individual element. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, which one or ones gave the correct answer for their input? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >>>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>>>>> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines_Descriptions* >>>>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When we formalize it that way then some simulating halt deciders >>>>>>> get the correct answer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Everyone else implicitly assumes this incorrect formalization* >>>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>>>>>> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines* >>>>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope. >>>>>> >>>>>> You just don't understand the meaning of a "Description" in the problem. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> A deciders compute the mapping FROM ITS INPUTS >>>>> to it own accept or reject state >>>>> Deciders cannot take ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS >>>>> Deciders can only take FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS >>>>> >>>> >>>> If you want to be pedantic, you made the mistake. >>>> It's actually H(DescriptionOf(x),y) = Halts(x,y) >>>> DescriptionOf is an injective function that converts Turing machines >>>> into finite strings. >>> >>> OR in his formal language: >>> >>> >>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines, and for >>> ∀M ∈ Turing_Machines, which have a description Wm, and >>> ∀w ∈ Finite_Strings >>> such that H(Wm,w) = Halts(M,w) >>> >>> The problem is that there doesn't exist a FUNCTION "Description" as one >>> machine can have an potentially infinite number of descriptions. >> >> At this point we may assume the axiom of choice. >> >>> It is more that there is an inverse function, Described where we could >>> say that M = Described(Wm) >> >> > also the function "Description" doesn't have to 'know' all of the > descriptions - one per machine is enough. OTOH, the Turing machine must answer the same way about all descriptions that describe the same. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-30 07:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v39o4o$2h667$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105728 |
On 5/29/24 11:48 PM, olcott wrote: > On 5/29/2024 9:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 5/29/24 10:36 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 5/29/2024 9:25 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 5/29/24 9:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> When the category is examined all at once then there is no need >>>>> to look at each individual element. >>>> >>>> So, which one or ones gave the correct answer for their input? >>>> >>> >>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure* >>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines_Descriptions* >>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>> >>> When we formalize it that way then some simulating halt deciders >>> get the correct answer. >>> >>> *Everyone else implicitly assumes this incorrect formalization* >>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines >>> ∀x ∈ *Turing_Machines* >>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings >>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) >>> >>> >> >> Nope. >> >> You just don't understand the meaning of a "Description" in the problem. >> > > I have an OCD/Aspergers degree of single-minded focus. > 20 years ago I tested 50% above normal on the Aspergers test. > Because I have focused this concentration of having empathy > I now score 50% below normal on Asperger tests. Which explains, but not excuses you awful behavior. > > The issue is that everyone else has not paid close enough > attention to what a decider does. No, YOU haven't paid close enough attention to what a "foo" decideer is supposed ot do. Your H may be a correct decider (but I suspect we can find inputs it doesn't always halt on) but it isn't a *HALT* decider as its answer doesn't match the Halts I guess you are aadmitting to a mental deficency that just makes it impossible to understand the truth, that also gives you a social deficency to be unable to communicate this properly to others. That doesn't excuse your behavior. Question, is this the source of your mental incompetancy to stand trial on the kiddie porn charges? Have they decided that you are just an annoyance to society, but not am actual threat so you don't need to be locked up? > > *A deciders compute the mapping* > > FROM ITS INPUTS > FROM ITS INPUTS > FROM ITS INPUTS > FROM ITS INPUTS > FROM ITS INPUTS And *THE* mapping it is trying to compute is the funcitons Halts(x, y) Which CAN'T very based on H, as it doesn't take H as an input > > *to it own accept or reject state* > > *Deciders cannot take* > > ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS > ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS > ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS > ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS > ACTUAL TURING MACHINES AS INPUTS But CAN take a complete description of one. > > *Deciders can only take* > > FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS > FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS > FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS > FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS > FINITE STRINGS AS INPUTS > > Which a complete description of a Turing Machine is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 07:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v373mr$2d367$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105666 |
On 5/28/24 11:49 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/28/2024 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 5/28/24 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/28/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/24 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>>>> 02 {
>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>> 07 }
>>>>> 08
>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>> 10 {
>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>
>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>
>>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,x)
>>>>
>>>> But since for x being the description of the H^ built from that H
>>>> and y being the same, it turns out that no matter what answer H
>>>> gives, it will be wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> We have not gotten to that point yet this post is so that
>>> you can fully understand what templates are and how they work.
>>
>> But note, x, being a Turing Machine, is NOT a "template"
>>
>> And H, isn't a "set of Turing Machines", but an arbitrary member of
>> that set, so all we need to do is find a single x, y, possible
>> determined as a function of H (so, BUILT from a template, but not a
>> template themselves) that shows that particular H was wrong.
>>
>>
>> That is basically what Linz does.
>>
>> Given a SPECIFIC (but arbitary) H, we can construct a specific H^
>> built from a template from H, that that H can not get right.
>>
>> All the other H's might get this input right, but we don't care, we
>> have shown that for every H we
>>
>>>
>>>> (And I think you have an error in your reference to Halts, I think
>>>> you mean Halts(x,y) not Halts(x,x)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes good catch. I was trying to model embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>> and then changed my mind to make it more general.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Here is the same thing applied to H/D pairs*
>>>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>>>>> ∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
>>>>> such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
>>>>
>>>> Not the same thing.
>>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>>>> is not equivalent to
>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>
>>>> as there are many C_Functions that are not the equivalent of Turing
>>>> Machines.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The whole purpose here is to get you to understand what
>>> templates are and how they reference infinite sets.
>>>
>>
>> But the problem is that even in your formulation, H and D are, when
>> doing the test, SPECIFIC PROGRAMS and not "templates" as Halts is
>> defined on the domain of PROGRAMS.
>>
>> Similarly, a "Template" doesn't have a specific set of
>> x86_Machine_Code_of_C_function, at least not one with defined behavior
>> since if it tries to reference code outside of itself, then Halts of
>> that just isn't defined, only Halts of that code + the specific
>> machine deciding it.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In both cases infinite sets are examined to see
>>>>> if any H exists with the required properties.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but the logic of Turing Machines looks at them one at a time,
>>>> and the input is a FULL INDEPENDENT PROGRAM.
>>>>
>>>
>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>> That does not look at one machine it looks as an infinite set of
>>> machines. I am very happy to find out that you were not playing head
>>> games. Linz actually used the words that you referred to.
>>
>> while the ∃H part can create a set of machines, each element of that
>> set is INDIVIDUALLY TESTED in the following conditions, so, when we
>> get to your test H(x,y) = Halts(x,x), each of H, x, y are individual
>> members of the set, and we THEN collect the set of all of them.
>>
>> If we try to say
>> ∃x ∈ Natural Numbers, such that x+x = 3
>> we can't say that x is both 1 and 2 and thus as a set meet the
>> requirement. For the conditions, each qualifier select a single
>> prospective element, and those are tested to see if that meet the
>> requirement.
>>
>
> So it never was about any specific machine as Linz misleading words
> seemed to indicate. It was always about examining each element of an
> infinite set.
No, you just don't understand how logic works.
The main body of the proof IS about a SPECIFIC (but arbitrary) machine
out of the infinite set.
>
> Likewise: ∃H ∈ C_Functions is about examining each element
> of an infinite set. A program template specifies a set of programs
> the same way that an axiom schema specifies a set of axioms.
Right EACH ELEMENT INDIVIDUALLY
>
> I am very happy that the issue was the misleading words of Linz
> and not you playing head games.
>
But you still don't seem to understand that the final statement
H(x,y) = Halts(x, y)
Is a statement about SPECIFIC Machines/inputs H, x, and y as individuals.
So, the evaluation of each term is done as an individual.
So, the question for THAT H, isn't can any machine in the do the
simulation for its paired machine, it is did THIS H get the right answer
for THIS input.
The fact that when H(D,D) says non-halting for the D built on it, but
that D when used to process D(D) will halt, says that H just fails the
requried test, so it CAN'T be an H that meets the requirements.
The fact that we can categorically do that for ALL Hs, that is find an
x, y that they will get wrong, says the claim of the existance of an H
that meets that requirement is a LIE.
You just don't understand how logic works, and think false statements
can be true, becuase you just don't care about truth, but have a
reckless disregard for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 08:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v37bpa$15n0b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105672 |
On 5/29/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 5/28/24 11:49 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/28/2024 10:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 5/28/24 10:23 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 5/28/2024 9:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 5/28/24 12:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
>>>>>> 00 int H(ptr p, ptr i);
>>>>>> 01 int D(ptr p)
>>>>>> 02 {
>>>>>> 03 int Halt_Status = H(p, p);
>>>>>> 04 if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>> 05 HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>> 06 return Halt_Status;
>>>>>> 07 }
>>>>>> 08
>>>>>> 09 int main()
>>>>>> 10 {
>>>>>> 11 H(D,D);
>>>>>> 12 return 0;
>>>>>> 13 }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
>>>>>> Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
>>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>>>>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
>>>>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,x)
>>>>>
>>>>> But since for x being the description of the H^ built from that H
>>>>> and y being the same, it turns out that no matter what answer H
>>>>> gives, it will be wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We have not gotten to that point yet this post is so that
>>>> you can fully understand what templates are and how they work.
>>>
>>> But note, x, being a Turing Machine, is NOT a "template"
>>>
>>> And H, isn't a "set of Turing Machines", but an arbitrary member of
>>> that set, so all we need to do is find a single x, y, possible
>>> determined as a function of H (so, BUILT from a template, but not a
>>> template themselves) that shows that particular H was wrong.
>>>
>>>
>>> That is basically what Linz does.
>>>
>>> Given a SPECIFIC (but arbitary) H, we can construct a specific H^
>>> built from a template from H, that that H can not get right.
>>>
>>> All the other H's might get this input right, but we don't care, we
>>> have shown that for every H we
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> (And I think you have an error in your reference to Halts, I think
>>>>> you mean Halts(x,y) not Halts(x,x)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes good catch. I was trying to model embedded_H / ⟨Ĥ⟩
>>>> and then changed my mind to make it more general.
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Here is the same thing applied to H/D pairs*
>>>>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>>>>>> ∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
>>>>>> such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
>>>>>
>>>>> Not the same thing.
>>>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>>>>> is not equivalent to
>>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>>>
>>>>> as there are many C_Functions that are not the equivalent of Turing
>>>>> Machines.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The whole purpose here is to get you to understand what
>>>> templates are and how they reference infinite sets.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But the problem is that even in your formulation, H and D are, when
>>> doing the test, SPECIFIC PROGRAMS and not "templates" as Halts is
>>> defined on the domain of PROGRAMS.
>>>
>>> Similarly, a "Template" doesn't have a specific set of
>>> x86_Machine_Code_of_C_function, at least not one with defined
>>> behavior since if it tries to reference code outside of itself, then
>>> Halts of that just isn't defined, only Halts of that code + the
>>> specific machine deciding it.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In both cases infinite sets are examined to see
>>>>>> if any H exists with the required properties.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but the logic of Turing Machines looks at them one at a time,
>>>>> and the input is a FULL INDEPENDENT PROGRAM.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>>> That does not look at one machine it looks as an infinite set of
>>>> machines. I am very happy to find out that you were not playing head
>>>> games. Linz actually used the words that you referred to.
>>>
>>> while the ∃H part can create a set of machines, each element of that
>>> set is INDIVIDUALLY TESTED in the following conditions, so, when we
>>> get to your test H(x,y) = Halts(x,x), each of H, x, y are individual
>>> members of the set, and we THEN collect the set of all of them.
>>>
>>> If we try to say
>>> ∃x ∈ Natural Numbers, such that x+x = 3
>>> we can't say that x is both 1 and 2 and thus as a set meet the
>>> requirement. For the conditions, each qualifier select a single
>>> prospective element, and those are tested to see if that meet the
>>> requirement.
>>>
>>
>> So it never was about any specific machine as Linz misleading words
>> seemed to indicate. It was always about examining each element of an
>> infinite set.
>
> No, you just don't understand how logic works.
>
*Sure I do or I could not have encoded this correctly*
Of the infinite set of Turing_Machines does there exist at
least one H that always gets this H(x,y) = Halts(x,y) correctly
for every {x,y} pair of the infinite set of {x,y} pairs?
*Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
Everyone that knows the truth knows that I am correct and you are wrong.
There is NO correct reasoning that can possibly show that I am wrong.
Mike Terry would know that I am correct. Ben might not understand
quantification. Ben did verify this encoding:
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* embedded_H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
*I might like this encoding better*
When Ĥ is applied to ⟨Ĥ⟩
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qy ∞
Ĥ.q0 ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.H ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⟨Ĥ⟩ ⊢* Ĥ.qn
--
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 | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 15:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v37i9p$lls$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #105678 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: [ .... ] > Everyone that knows the truth knows that I am correct and you are wrong. > There is NO correct reasoning that can possibly show that I am wrong. Everybody here, bar one person, knows you are wrong. > Mike Terry would know that I am correct. Ben might not understand > quantification. Ben did verify this encoding: How about a bit of respect? Mike specifically asked you not to cite his name as a back up for your points. Why do you keep doing it? [ .... ] > -- > Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 11:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v37kfn$17606$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105680 |
On 5/29/2024 10:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [ Followup-To: set ]
>
> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [ .... ]
>
>> Everyone that knows the truth knows that I am correct and you are wrong.
>> There is NO correct reasoning that can possibly show that I am wrong.
>
> Everybody here, bar one person, knows you are wrong.
>
*Most everyone here believes that I am wrong at least somewhere*
When we go over what I am saying point by point and thus do not
allow the *strawman deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal*
no one here have provided complete and correct reasoning that I
am wrong on any one point.
The point of this post is {templates and infinite sets}
*Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
*Here is the same sort of template to H/D pairs*
∃H ∈ C_Functions
∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
>> Mike Terry would know that I am correct. Ben might not understand
>> quantification. Ben did verify this encoding:
>
> How about a bit of respect? Mike specifically asked you not to cite his
> name as a back up for your points. Why do you keep doing it?
I did not read it that way.
I read that he said that I often respond to specific reviewers by name.
>
> [ .... ]
>
>> --
>> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
>> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
>
--
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 | Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 18:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <v5ednfcIqoaD_Mr7nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #105681 |
On 29/05/2024 17:17, olcott wrote:
> On 5/29/2024 10:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>
>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [ .... ]
>>
>>> Everyone that knows the truth knows that I am correct and you are wrong.
>>> There is NO correct reasoning that can possibly show that I am wrong.
>>
>> Everybody here, bar one person, knows you are wrong.
>>
>
> *Most everyone here believes that I am wrong at least somewhere*
>
> When we go over what I am saying point by point and thus do not
> allow the *strawman deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal*
> no one here have provided complete and correct reasoning that I
> am wrong on any one point.
>
> The point of this post is {templates and infinite sets}
>
> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
>
> *Here is the same sort of template to H/D pairs*
> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
> ∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
> such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
>
>
>>> Mike Terry would know that I am correct. Ben might not understand
>>> quantification. Ben did verify this encoding:
>>
>> How about a bit of respect? Mike specifically asked you not to cite his
>> name as a back up for your points. Why do you keep doing it?
>
> I did not read it that way.
> I read that he said that I often respond to specific reviewers by name.
>
My points were :
- you refer to comments by reviewers (both here and elsewhere), often
out of context, as an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY - i.e. in an attempt to
shut down an ongoing discussion which you are incapable of arguing
yourself.
[I'm not suggesting I am any kind of "authority" here!.]
- you often /misrepresent/ reviewers position, because you lack the
ability to understand what reviewers actually mean when they make
a point to you.
- you should argue your own case in your own words.
Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 12:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v37oqg$181g6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105682 |
On 5/29/2024 12:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 29/05/2024 17:17, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/29/2024 10:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [ .... ]
>>>
>>>> Everyone that knows the truth knows that I am correct and you are
>>>> wrong.
>>>> There is NO correct reasoning that can possibly show that I am wrong.
>>>
>>> Everybody here, bar one person, knows you are wrong.
>>>
>>
>> *Most everyone here believes that I am wrong at least somewhere*
>>
>> When we go over what I am saying point by point and thus do not
>> allow the *strawman deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal*
>> no one here have provided complete and correct reasoning that I
>> am wrong on any one point.
>>
>> The point of this post is {templates and infinite sets}
>>
>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
>>
>> *Here is the same sort of template to H/D pairs*
>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>> ∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
>> such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
>>
>>
>>>> Mike Terry would know that I am correct. Ben might not understand
>>>> quantification. Ben did verify this encoding:
>>>
>>> How about a bit of respect? Mike specifically asked you not to cite his
>>> name as a back up for your points. Why do you keep doing it?
>>
>> I did not read it that way.
>> I read that he said that I often respond to specific reviewers by name.
>>
>
> My points were :
> - you refer to comments by reviewers (both here and elsewhere), often
> out of context, as an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY - i.e. in an attempt to
> shut down an ongoing discussion which you are incapable of arguing
> yourself.
> [I'm not suggesting I am any kind of "authority" here!.]
>
> - you often /misrepresent/ reviewers position, because you lack the
> ability to understand what reviewers actually mean when they make
> a point to you.
>
> - you should argue your own case in your own words.
>
> Mike.
Some People here seem have a strong bias against me personally
thus tend to deny easily verified facts just to play trollish
head games. I need some way to prove that they are lying.
Because of my POD24 diagnosis:
Validation of POD24 as a robust early clinical end point of
poor survival in FL from 5225 patients on 13 clinical trials
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/
I simply don't have time for trollish head games.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v38eqg$2foi0$8@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105683 |
On 5/29/24 1:32 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/29/2024 12:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 29/05/2024 17:17, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/29/2024 10:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>
>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>
>>>>> Everyone that knows the truth knows that I am correct and you are
>>>>> wrong.
>>>>> There is NO correct reasoning that can possibly show that I am wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Everybody here, bar one person, knows you are wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Most everyone here believes that I am wrong at least somewhere*
>>>
>>> When we go over what I am saying point by point and thus do not
>>> allow the *strawman deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal*
>>> no one here have provided complete and correct reasoning that I
>>> am wrong on any one point.
>>>
>>> The point of this post is {templates and infinite sets}
>>>
>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
>>>
>>> *Here is the same sort of template to H/D pairs*
>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>>> ∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
>>> such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Mike Terry would know that I am correct. Ben might not understand
>>>>> quantification. Ben did verify this encoding:
>>>>
>>>> How about a bit of respect? Mike specifically asked you not to cite
>>>> his
>>>> name as a back up for your points. Why do you keep doing it?
>>>
>>> I did not read it that way.
>>> I read that he said that I often respond to specific reviewers by name.
>>>
>>
>> My points were :
>> - you refer to comments by reviewers (both here and elsewhere), often
>> out of context, as an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY - i.e. in an attempt to
>> shut down an ongoing discussion which you are incapable of arguing
>> yourself.
>> [I'm not suggesting I am any kind of "authority" here!.]
>>
>> - you often /misrepresent/ reviewers position, because you lack the
>> ability to understand what reviewers actually mean when they make
>> a point to you.
>>
>> - you should argue your own case in your own words.
>>
>> Mike.
>
> Some People here seem have a strong bias against me personally
> thus tend to deny easily verified facts just to play trollish
> head games. I need some way to prove that they are lying.
>
> Because of my POD24 diagnosis:
>
> Validation of POD24 as a robust early clinical end point of
> poor survival in FL from 5225 patients on 13 clinical trials
> https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34614146/
>
> I simply don't have time for trollish head games.
>
Which doesn't give you the right to LIE about what other people have said.
You are just confirming your destination to Gehenna.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 13:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v37qvj$18brs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105682 |
On 5/29/2024 12:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> On 29/05/2024 17:17, olcott wrote:
>> On 5/29/2024 10:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> [ .... ]
>>>
>>>> Everyone that knows the truth knows that I am correct and you are
>>>> wrong.
>>>> There is NO correct reasoning that can possibly show that I am wrong.
>>>
>>> Everybody here, bar one person, knows you are wrong.
>>>
>>
>> *Most everyone here believes that I am wrong at least somewhere*
>>
>> When we go over what I am saying point by point and thus do not
>> allow the *strawman deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal*
>> no one here have provided complete and correct reasoning that I
>> am wrong on any one point.
>>
>> The point of this post is {templates and infinite sets}
>>
>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
>>
>> *Here is the same sort of template to H/D pairs*
>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>> ∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
>> such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
>>
>>
>>>> Mike Terry would know that I am correct. Ben might not understand
>>>> quantification. Ben did verify this encoding:
>>>
>>> How about a bit of respect? Mike specifically asked you not to cite his
>>> name as a back up for your points. Why do you keep doing it?
>>
>> I did not read it that way.
>> I read that he said that I often respond to specific reviewers by name.
>>
>
> My points were :
> - you refer to comments by reviewers (both here and elsewhere), often
> out of context, as an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY - i.e. in an attempt to
> shut down an ongoing discussion which you are incapable of arguing
> yourself.
> [I'm not suggesting I am any kind of "authority" here!.]
>
> - you often /misrepresent/ reviewers position, because you lack the
> ability to understand what reviewers actually mean when they make
> a point to you.
>
> - you should argue your own case in your own words.
>
> Mike.
Whenever I do quote someone I have always provided the time/date
stamp so that the complete context can be easily seen.
I also now add the unique Message-ID since the Thai spammer
has forced Goggle Groups to shut down.
Message-ID: <rLmcnQQ3-N_tvH_4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>
> Obviously a simulator has access to the internal state
> (tape contents etc.) of the simulated machine. No problem there.
I waited for two years for someone to confirm this key element
of my proof.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-05-29 19:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v38eqi$2foi0$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #105684 |
On 5/29/24 2:08 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/29/2024 12:08 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
>> On 29/05/2024 17:17, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/29/2024 10:40 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> [ Followup-To: set ]
>>>>
>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [ .... ]
>>>>
>>>>> Everyone that knows the truth knows that I am correct and you are
>>>>> wrong.
>>>>> There is NO correct reasoning that can possibly show that I am wrong.
>>>>
>>>> Everybody here, bar one person, knows you are wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *Most everyone here believes that I am wrong at least somewhere*
>>>
>>> When we go over what I am saying point by point and thus do not
>>> allow the *strawman deception CHANGE-THE-SUBJECT fake rebuttal*
>>> no one here have provided complete and correct reasoning that I
>>> am wrong on any one point.
>>>
>>> The point of this post is {templates and infinite sets}
>>>
>>> *Formalizing the Linz Proof structure*
>>> ∃H ∈ Turing_Machines
>>> ∀x ∈ Turing_Machines_Descriptions
>>> ∀y ∈ Finite_Strings
>>> such that H(x,y) = Halts(x,y)
>>>
>>> *Here is the same sort of template to H/D pairs*
>>> ∃H ∈ C_Functions
>>> ∀D ∈ x86_Machine_Code_of_C_Functions
>>> such that H(D,D) = Halts(D,D)
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Mike Terry would know that I am correct. Ben might not understand
>>>>> quantification. Ben did verify this encoding:
>>>>
>>>> How about a bit of respect? Mike specifically asked you not to cite
>>>> his
>>>> name as a back up for your points. Why do you keep doing it?
>>>
>>> I did not read it that way.
>>> I read that he said that I often respond to specific reviewers by name.
>>>
>>
>> My points were :
>> - you refer to comments by reviewers (both here and elsewhere), often
>> out of context, as an APPEAL TO AUTHORITY - i.e. in an attempt to
>> shut down an ongoing discussion which you are incapable of arguing
>> yourself.
>> [I'm not suggesting I am any kind of "authority" here!.]
>>
>> - you often /misrepresent/ reviewers position, because you lack the
>> ability to understand what reviewers actually mean when they make
>> a point to you.
>>
>> - you should argue your own case in your own words.
>>
>> Mike.
>
> Whenever I do quote someone I have always provided the time/date
> stamp so that the complete context can be easily seen.
Doesn't make it right to quote out of context, especially in violation
of the persons stated desires.
I guess you are showing that you are forfeiting your "Copyright" since
peoples wishes don't matter.
>
> I also now add the unique Message-ID since the Thai spammer
> has forced Goggle Groups to shut down.
>
> Message-ID: <rLmcnQQ3-N_tvH_4nZ2dnZfqnPGdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
> On 3/1/2024 12:41 PM, Mike Terry wrote:
> >
> > Obviously a simulator has access to the internal state
> > (tape contents etc.) of the simulated machine. No problem there.
Which doesn't mean what you claim that he supports.
>
> I waited for two years for someone to confirm this key element
> of my proof.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web