Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #106095 > unrolled thread
| Started by | immibis <news@immibis.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-06-03 02:16 +0200 |
| Last post | 2024-06-03 13:38 +0300 |
| Articles | 12 on this page of 332 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-03 02:16 +0200
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-02 20:34 -0400
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-03 04:28 +0100
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-02 22:50 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 07:14 -0400
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-03 15:36 +0200
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-03 17:25 +0100
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 12:54 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 20:57 -0400
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-04 02:38 +0100
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 20:46 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 21:59 -0400
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 21:18 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 22:49 -0400
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 12:12 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 21:47 -0400
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-05 10:08 +0300
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 08:08 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 21:47 +0800
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 09:10 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-06 11:25 +0300
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 08:13 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-06 18:18 +0300
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 10:32 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 07:10 -0400
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-04 03:57 +0100
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 22:12 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 23:57 -0400
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 12:26 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 21:47 -0400
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Mikes Review immibis <news2@immibis.com> - 2024-06-04 19:36 +0200
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-06-03 10:42 +0100
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Ben's Review olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 07:20 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Ben's Review immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-03 15:39 +0200
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Ben's Review Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 17:27 +0300
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Ben's Review olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 13:14 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Ben's Review Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 20:56 -0400
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Ben's Review joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-04 08:21 +0000
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Ben's Review olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 12:31 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Ben's Review Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-04 11:28 +0300
Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 12:40 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways immibis <news2@immibis.com> - 2024-06-04 20:27 +0200
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 21:48 -0400
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 21:05 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways John Smith <news2@immibis.com> - 2024-06-05 04:12 +0200
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 21:16 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 22:22 -0400
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-05 10:28 +0300
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 08:24 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 19:39 -0400
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways John Smith <news2@immibis.com> - 2024-06-05 19:03 +0200
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 12:09 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways John Smith <news2@immibis.com> - 2024-06-05 19:29 +0200
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 12:37 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-05 18:16 +0000
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-05 18:33 +0000
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways --very stupid olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 21:09 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways --very stupid Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 22:28 -0400
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways --very stupid Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-06 11:52 +0300
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways --very stupid olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 08:37 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways --very stupid Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 19:42 -0400
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-06 11:45 +0300
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 08:23 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 22:22 -0400
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-05 10:11 +0200
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 08:59 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-05 20:51 +0200
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 17:44 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-06 18:01 +0200
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 11:07 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-06 18:34 +0200
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 11:44 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways immibis <news2@immibis.com> - 2024-06-06 20:09 +0200
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 19:46 -0400
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-06 12:02 +0300
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 08:41 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-06 18:07 +0300
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 10:15 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-07 09:19 +0300
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 22:08 -0400
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-05 10:13 +0300
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 08:18 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-05 18:25 +0000
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 19:51 -0400
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-06 12:34 +0300
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 08:48 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-06 18:09 +0300
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 10:18 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-07 09:22 +0300
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 09:09 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:14 -0400
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 21:02 +0000
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:27 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-08 09:13 +0300
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 07:42 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:03 -0400
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-09 11:09 +0300
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 08:27 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-08 09:06 +0300
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 07:35 -0500
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:03 -0400
Re: Halting Problem is wrong two different ways immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-07 16:25 +0200
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Ben's Review immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-04 16:38 +0200
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Ben's Review "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 22:09 +0200
Mike Terry Reply to Fred Zwarts olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 16:24 -0500
Re: Mike Terry Reply to Fred Zwarts "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-04 12:29 +0200
Re: Mike Terry Reply to Fred Zwarts "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-04 12:52 +0200
Re: Mike Terry Reply to Fred Zwarts Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-04 17:58 +0100
How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 13:02 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-04 21:26 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 17:16 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 21:48 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-05 10:21 +0200
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 09:04 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-05 18:28 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-05 20:55 +0200
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-05 09:32 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 07:45 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-05 18:05 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error John Smith <news2@immibis.com> - 2024-06-05 03:20 +0200
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 20:33 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error John Smith <news2@immibis.com> - 2024-06-05 03:39 +0200
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 21:07 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error John Smith <news2@immibis.com> - 2024-06-05 04:13 +0200
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 21:19 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error John Smith <news2@immibis.com> - 2024-06-05 17:40 +0200
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 11:51 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-05 18:38 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 19:52 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-06-05 10:38 +0100
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting --- Ben's strawman deception olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 07:09 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting --- Ben's strawman deception joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-05 17:57 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting --- Ben's strawman deception olcon'tt <news2@immibis.com> - 2024-06-07 16:10 +0200
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-05 16:55 +0100
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 11:49 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error John Smith <news2@immibis.com> - 2024-06-05 19:25 +0200
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 12:35 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-05 18:22 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-06 00:33 +0100
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error !!! olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 19:48 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error !!! Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 21:10 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-05 21:28 +0100
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 17:07 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations incorrectly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-05 23:04 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-06 22:55 +0100
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 21:53 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-06 23:29 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 14:55 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 09:59 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:14 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 15:24 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 21:48 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-05 10:37 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 08:29 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-05 19:54 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-06 13:15 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 08:53 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-06 18:14 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-06 10:31 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-07 09:30 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 09:47 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-06-07 16:55 +0200
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 10:05 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-06-07 17:09 +0200
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 10:20 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:28 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 15:32 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 10:40 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:51 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 16:34 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 11:53 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 20:40 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-08 03:43 +0100
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 23:03 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 22:36 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:03 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:43 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:05 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-09 11:15 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 08:45 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 22:16 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:03 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-08 09:28 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 07:47 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 08:59 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:22 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:06 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-08 17:43 +0100
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 12:19 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 16:33 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:19 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations incorrectly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 15:27 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations incorrectly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 10:30 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations incorrectly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis news2@immibis.com - 2024-06-07 17:32 +0200
Re: How Partial Simulations incorrectly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:52 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:14 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-07 19:56 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 12:11 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 14:32 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-08 09:36 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 07:52 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:10 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:48 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:10 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 09:20 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:54 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 10:07 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 11:15 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 10:32 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 12:03 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 12:10 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-08 18:12 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 13:36 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-08 19:59 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 15:15 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-08 21:37 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 16:42 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 17:50 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 17:04 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 18:27 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 17:34 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 22:47 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 21:58 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 23:53 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 23:02 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 00:11 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 23:38 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-09 11:38 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 08:58 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-09 18:56 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 11:23 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-10 09:30 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 09:59 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-11 10:35 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:38 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 16:23 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 15:34 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 16:47 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 15:52 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 16:57 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 16:14 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 17:28 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 16:38 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 17:48 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 16:58 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 18:25 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 17:30 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 22:47 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 22:02 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 23:56 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 23:06 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Should I quit Richard at this point? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-09 11:20 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 08:53 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-09 18:15 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 11:18 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-10 09:57 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:05 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-11 10:22 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-10 12:50 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 21:00 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 17:26 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 19:00 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-07 23:19 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 18:44 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:38 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-06-08 02:25 +0200
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-07 19:35 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 20:48 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-08 09:42 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:04 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-08 15:20 +0200
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 08:32 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-08 15:56 +0200
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 09:11 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:20 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:17 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 09:36 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-08 13:46 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-08 09:02 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-08 10:31 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-09 11:52 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 09:03 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-09 18:13 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 11:15 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-09 17:47 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-10 10:54 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:22 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-09 11:47 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 08:59 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-09 18:11 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 11:09 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting -- TM as finite string joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-09 17:50 +0000
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-09 14:08 -0400
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-10 11:01 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:23 -0500
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Ben's 10/2022 analysis Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-11 10:25 +0300
Re: How Partial Simulations correctly determine non-halting ---Mike Terry Error Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-07 11:14 -0400
Re: Mike Terry Reply to Fred Zwarts "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-04 13:02 +0200
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- Ben's Review Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 20:56 -0400
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-03 17:58 +0100
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-03 09:58 +0200
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-03 18:36 +0100
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 13:03 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-03 19:56 +0100
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? --- woeful ignorance olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 14:26 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 19:47 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 20:59 -0400
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 20:05 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 21:44 -0400
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 20:54 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 21:58 -0400
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 21:09 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 22:26 -0400
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-03 21:47 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-03 22:53 -0400
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-04 12:06 -0500
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-04 21:47 -0400
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-05 10:31 +0200
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-05 09:06 -0500
Re: Why is Olcott so ignorant, anyway? immibis <news@immibis.com> - 2024-06-04 17:25 +0200
Re: Why does Olcott care about simulation, anyway? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-03 13:38 +0300
Page 17 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-03 20:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3ls46$4h2j$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106202 |
On 6/3/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/3/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/3/2024 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/3/24 8:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/3/2024 1:56 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>> On 03/06/2024 19:03, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/3/2024 12:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/06/2024 08:58, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 03.jun.2024 om 02:16 schreef immibis: >>>>>>>>> The halting problem says you can't find a Turing machine that >>>>>>>>> tells whether executing each other Turing machine will halt. >>>>>>>>> Simulation has nothing to do with the question. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe because by using simulation he can shift the attention >>>>>>>> from the pathological part of the Linz proof, to another halting >>>>>>>> problem, namely that a simulating decider does not halt because >>>>>>>> it causes infinite recursion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PO's simulating decider does not cause infinite recursion. That >>>>>>> only occurs in the case where the decider performs a FULL >>>>>>> simulation of its input, whereas typically for PO his H/HH/... >>>>>>> perform PARTIAL simulations, where the decider monitors what is >>>>>>> being simulated and breaks off the simulation when a particular >>>>>>> condition is observed. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for affirming that. You are my most technically >>>>>> competent and honest reviewer. >>>>>> >>>>>>> So yes, there is recursive simulation, but not /infinite/ >>>>>>> recursion since at each level of simulation the simulator is free >>>>>>> to just stop simulating at any time. In practice this means that >>>>>>> the outer simulator H will be the one to break out, since it will >>>>>>> always be ahead of all the inner simulations of H in how far it >>>>>>> has progressed. This situation is in contrast with direct call >>>>>>> recursion, where the outer caller has no control to break the >>>>>>> recursion - it only regains control once the inner calls have all >>>>>>> returned. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> PO does not properly understand this distinction. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *You can keep ignoring this that does not make it go away* >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM >>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is >>>>>> correct >>>>>> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper) >>>>>> >>>>>> <Professor Sipser agreed> >>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>>>> unless aborted then >>>>>> >>>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>> specifies a >>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>> </Professor Sipser agreed> >>>>>> >>>>>> *You can ignore the above forever, that does not make it away* >>>>> >>>>> I do not ignore the above. I recently posted an example of it: a >>>>> simulating HD correctly reporting non-halting after detecting a >>>>> tight loop in the computation represented by its input. >>>>> >>>>> The problem with the above is with YOU. (You misinterpret/misapply >>>>> what Sipser says.) >>>>> >>>>> And of course your entire purpose behind quoting the above is just >>>>> an appeal to authority. You know that's a fallacy, because from >>>>> time to time you accuse others of doing it. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> His own claim that D does not reach the pathological part (after >>>>>>>> line 03), displays already that the simulation is unable to >>>>>>>> process the pathological part. But the simulation introduces a >>>>>>>> new halting problem (recursive simulation), which he thinks is >>>>>>>> an answer for the original halting problem. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You're using PO's phrase "pathological" but that is a bad >>>>>>> (misleading) term because it suggests there is something >>>>>>> WRONG/BAD (aka sick?) in the situation. E.g. H processing input >>>>>>> which is a description of its own source code. There is nothing >>>>>>> whatsoever wrong with that - it's just that PO gets confused by >>>>>>> it and so argues to ban it. Perhaps there is an alternative >>>>>>> term that doesn't have the deliberate connotation of "sickness". >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mike. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Two PhD computer science professors disagree* >>>>>> >>>>>> E C R Hehner. *Problems with the Halting Problem*, COMPUTING2011 >>>>>> Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and Lambda-Calculus, >>>>>> Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21; Advances in >>>>>> Computer Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013 >>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications* >>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18. >>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>> >>>>>> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox* >>>>>> 20 December 2017 >>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340 >>>>>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO] >>>>>> >>>>>> *You can ignore the above forever, that does not make it away* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Well, it kinda DOES. This is just a blatant appeal to authority on >>>>> your part, so it can rightly be ignored. I'll say again - if you >>>>> have some argument to make, argue it yourself in your own words >>>>> rather than attempting to shut down discussion through appeal to >>>>> authority. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *Those were my verbatim words that professor Sipser agreed to* >>>> All the people that tried to show how I misinterpreted my own words >>>> utterly failed. >>>> >>>> Those that claimed Professor Sipser understood my words differently >>>> than >>>> I did had only one basis that I remember being presented that is easily >>>> proven false. *They tried to get away with contradicting this* >>>> >>>> DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT >>>> DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT >>>> DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT >>> >>> It does. >>> >>> Has been proven. >>> >> >> *I say that you know you are a liar until after you show the steps* > > DD will halt (Remember, I am not saying the somulaiton by HH, but that > DD itself will halt). > That IS the strawman deception that might possibly (I hope not) get you condemned to Hell. -- 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 | 2024-06-03 21:58 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3lscq$2uv04$15@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106205 |
On 6/3/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/3/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/3/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/3/2024 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/3/24 8:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/3/2024 1:56 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>> On 03/06/2024 19:03, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/3/2024 12:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>> On 03/06/2024 08:58, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>> Op 03.jun.2024 om 02:16 schreef immibis: >>>>>>>>>> The halting problem says you can't find a Turing machine that >>>>>>>>>> tells whether executing each other Turing machine will halt. >>>>>>>>>> Simulation has nothing to do with the question. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Maybe because by using simulation he can shift the attention >>>>>>>>> from the pathological part of the Linz proof, to another >>>>>>>>> halting problem, namely that a simulating decider does not halt >>>>>>>>> because it causes infinite recursion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PO's simulating decider does not cause infinite recursion. That >>>>>>>> only occurs in the case where the decider performs a FULL >>>>>>>> simulation of its input, whereas typically for PO his H/HH/... >>>>>>>> perform PARTIAL simulations, where the decider monitors what is >>>>>>>> being simulated and breaks off the simulation when a particular >>>>>>>> condition is observed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks for affirming that. You are my most technically >>>>>>> competent and honest reviewer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So yes, there is recursive simulation, but not /infinite/ >>>>>>>> recursion since at each level of simulation the simulator is >>>>>>>> free to just stop simulating at any time. In practice this >>>>>>>> means that the outer simulator H will be the one to break out, >>>>>>>> since it will always be ahead of all the inner simulations of H >>>>>>>> in how far it has progressed. This situation is in contrast >>>>>>>> with direct call recursion, where the outer caller has no >>>>>>>> control to break the recursion - it only regains control once >>>>>>>> the inner calls have all returned. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> PO does not properly understand this distinction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *You can keep ignoring this that does not make it go away* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM >>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is >>>>>>> correct >>>>>>> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <Professor Sipser agreed> >>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until H >>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>>>>> unless aborted then >>>>>>> >>>>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>> specifies a >>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>> </Professor Sipser agreed> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *You can ignore the above forever, that does not make it away* >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not ignore the above. I recently posted an example of it: a >>>>>> simulating HD correctly reporting non-halting after detecting a >>>>>> tight loop in the computation represented by its input. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem with the above is with YOU. (You >>>>>> misinterpret/misapply what Sipser says.) >>>>>> >>>>>> And of course your entire purpose behind quoting the above is just >>>>>> an appeal to authority. You know that's a fallacy, because from >>>>>> time to time you accuse others of doing it. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> His own claim that D does not reach the pathological part >>>>>>>>> (after line 03), displays already that the simulation is unable >>>>>>>>> to process the pathological part. But the simulation introduces >>>>>>>>> a new halting problem (recursive simulation), which he thinks >>>>>>>>> is an answer for the original halting problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You're using PO's phrase "pathological" but that is a bad >>>>>>>> (misleading) term because it suggests there is something >>>>>>>> WRONG/BAD (aka sick?) in the situation. E.g. H processing input >>>>>>>> which is a description of its own source code. There is nothing >>>>>>>> whatsoever wrong with that - it's just that PO gets confused by >>>>>>>> it and so argues to ban it. Perhaps there is an alternative >>>>>>>> term that doesn't have the deliberate connotation of "sickness". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Mike. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Two PhD computer science professors disagree* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> E C R Hehner. *Problems with the Halting Problem*, COMPUTING2011 >>>>>>> Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and Lambda-Calculus, >>>>>>> Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21; Advances in >>>>>>> Computer Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013 >>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications* >>>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18. >>>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox* >>>>>>> 20 December 2017 >>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340 >>>>>>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *You can ignore the above forever, that does not make it away* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, it kinda DOES. This is just a blatant appeal to authority >>>>>> on your part, so it can rightly be ignored. I'll say again - if >>>>>> you have some argument to make, argue it yourself in your own >>>>>> words rather than attempting to shut down discussion through >>>>>> appeal to authority. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *Those were my verbatim words that professor Sipser agreed to* >>>>> All the people that tried to show how I misinterpreted my own words >>>>> utterly failed. >>>>> >>>>> Those that claimed Professor Sipser understood my words differently >>>>> than >>>>> I did had only one basis that I remember being presented that is >>>>> easily >>>>> proven false. *They tried to get away with contradicting this* >>>>> >>>>> DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT >>>>> DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT >>>>> DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT >>>> >>>> It does. >>>> >>>> Has been proven. >>>> >>> >>> *I say that you know you are a liar until after you show the steps* >> >> DD will halt (Remember, I am not saying the somulaiton by HH, but that >> DD itself will halt). >> > > That IS the strawman deception that might possibly (I hope not) > get you condemned to Hell. > What is strawman about it? I am just using the actual definitions that YOU like to ignore and make lies about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-03 21:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3lt08$8gjv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106206 |
On 6/3/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/3/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/3/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/3/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/3/2024 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/3/24 8:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/3/2024 1:56 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>> On 03/06/2024 19:03, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/3/2024 12:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2024 08:58, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Op 03.jun.2024 om 02:16 schreef immibis: >>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem says you can't find a Turing machine that >>>>>>>>>>> tells whether executing each other Turing machine will halt. >>>>>>>>>>> Simulation has nothing to do with the question. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe because by using simulation he can shift the attention >>>>>>>>>> from the pathological part of the Linz proof, to another >>>>>>>>>> halting problem, namely that a simulating decider does not >>>>>>>>>> halt because it causes infinite recursion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PO's simulating decider does not cause infinite recursion. >>>>>>>>> That only occurs in the case where the decider performs a FULL >>>>>>>>> simulation of its input, whereas typically for PO his H/HH/... >>>>>>>>> perform PARTIAL simulations, where the decider monitors what is >>>>>>>>> being simulated and breaks off the simulation when a particular >>>>>>>>> condition is observed. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for affirming that. You are my most technically >>>>>>>> competent and honest reviewer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So yes, there is recursive simulation, but not /infinite/ >>>>>>>>> recursion since at each level of simulation the simulator is >>>>>>>>> free to just stop simulating at any time. In practice this >>>>>>>>> means that the outer simulator H will be the one to break out, >>>>>>>>> since it will always be ahead of all the inner simulations of H >>>>>>>>> in how far it has progressed. This situation is in contrast >>>>>>>>> with direct call recursion, where the outer caller has no >>>>>>>>> control to break the recursion - it only regains control once >>>>>>>>> the inner calls have all returned. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> PO does not properly understand this distinction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *You can keep ignoring this that does not make it go away* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM >>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is >>>>>>>> correct >>>>>>>> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this paper) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <Professor Sipser agreed> >>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>>>> until H >>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>>>>>> unless aborted then >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>> specifies a >>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>> </Professor Sipser agreed> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *You can ignore the above forever, that does not make it away* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I do not ignore the above. I recently posted an example of it: a >>>>>>> simulating HD correctly reporting non-halting after detecting a >>>>>>> tight loop in the computation represented by its input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem with the above is with YOU. (You >>>>>>> misinterpret/misapply what Sipser says.) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And of course your entire purpose behind quoting the above is >>>>>>> just an appeal to authority. You know that's a fallacy, because >>>>>>> from time to time you accuse others of doing it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> His own claim that D does not reach the pathological part >>>>>>>>>> (after line 03), displays already that the simulation is >>>>>>>>>> unable to process the pathological part. But the simulation >>>>>>>>>> introduces a new halting problem (recursive simulation), which >>>>>>>>>> he thinks is an answer for the original halting problem. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You're using PO's phrase "pathological" but that is a bad >>>>>>>>> (misleading) term because it suggests there is something >>>>>>>>> WRONG/BAD (aka sick?) in the situation. E.g. H processing >>>>>>>>> input which is a description of its own source code. There is >>>>>>>>> nothing whatsoever wrong with that - it's just that PO gets >>>>>>>>> confused by it and so argues to ban it. Perhaps there is an >>>>>>>>> alternative term that doesn't have the deliberate connotation >>>>>>>>> of "sickness". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mike. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Two PhD computer science professors disagree* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> E C R Hehner. *Problems with the Halting Problem*, COMPUTING2011 >>>>>>>> Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and Lambda-Calculus, >>>>>>>> Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October 20-21; Advances in >>>>>>>> Computer Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 p.31-60, 2013 >>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications* >>>>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18. >>>>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox* >>>>>>>> 20 December 2017 >>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340 >>>>>>>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *You can ignore the above forever, that does not make it away* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, it kinda DOES. This is just a blatant appeal to authority >>>>>>> on your part, so it can rightly be ignored. I'll say again - if >>>>>>> you have some argument to make, argue it yourself in your own >>>>>>> words rather than attempting to shut down discussion through >>>>>>> appeal to authority. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Those were my verbatim words that professor Sipser agreed to* >>>>>> All the people that tried to show how I misinterpreted my own words >>>>>> utterly failed. >>>>>> >>>>>> Those that claimed Professor Sipser understood my words >>>>>> differently than >>>>>> I did had only one basis that I remember being presented that is >>>>>> easily >>>>>> proven false. *They tried to get away with contradicting this* >>>>>> >>>>>> DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT >>>>>> DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT >>>>>> DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT HALT >>>>> >>>>> It does. >>>>> >>>>> Has been proven. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *I say that you know you are a liar until after you show the steps* >>> >>> DD will halt (Remember, I am not saying the somulaiton by HH, but >>> that DD itself will halt). >>> >> >> That IS the strawman deception that might possibly (I hope not) >> get you condemned to Hell. >> > > What is strawman about it? > > I am just using the actual definitions that YOU like to ignore and make > lies about. You may condemn yourself to Hell by even asking that question. I hope not. I myself wouldn't risk it. -- 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 | 2024-06-03 22:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3lu0d$2uv03$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106209 |
On 6/3/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/3/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/3/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/3/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/3/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/3/2024 7:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/3/24 8:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/3/2024 1:56 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>> On 03/06/2024 19:03, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/3/2024 12:36 PM, Mike Terry wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 03/06/2024 08:58, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Op 03.jun.2024 om 02:16 schreef immibis: >>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem says you can't find a Turing machine >>>>>>>>>>>> that tells whether executing each other Turing machine will >>>>>>>>>>>> halt. Simulation has nothing to do with the question. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Maybe because by using simulation he can shift the attention >>>>>>>>>>> from the pathological part of the Linz proof, to another >>>>>>>>>>> halting problem, namely that a simulating decider does not >>>>>>>>>>> halt because it causes infinite recursion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> PO's simulating decider does not cause infinite recursion. >>>>>>>>>> That only occurs in the case where the decider performs a FULL >>>>>>>>>> simulation of its input, whereas typically for PO his H/HH/... >>>>>>>>>> perform PARTIAL simulations, where the decider monitors what >>>>>>>>>> is being simulated and breaks off the simulation when a >>>>>>>>>> particular condition is observed. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks for affirming that. You are my most technically >>>>>>>>> competent and honest reviewer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So yes, there is recursive simulation, but not /infinite/ >>>>>>>>>> recursion since at each level of simulation the simulator is >>>>>>>>>> free to just stop simulating at any time. In practice this >>>>>>>>>> means that the outer simulator H will be the one to break out, >>>>>>>>>> since it will always be ahead of all the inner simulations of >>>>>>>>>> H in how far it has progressed. This situation is in contrast >>>>>>>>>> with direct call recursion, where the outer caller has no >>>>>>>>>> control to break the recursion - it only regains control once >>>>>>>>>> the inner calls have all returned. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> PO does not properly understand this distinction. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *You can keep ignoring this that does not make it go away* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 10/13/2022 11:29:23 AM >>>>>>>>> MIT Professor Michael Sipser agreed this verbatim paragraph is >>>>>>>>> correct >>>>>>>>> (He has neither reviewed nor agreed to anything else in this >>>>>>>>> paper) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <Professor Sipser agreed> >>>>>>>>> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >>>>>>>>> until H >>>>>>>>> correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop running >>>>>>>>> unless aborted then >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >>>>>>>>> specifies a >>>>>>>>> non-halting sequence of configurations. >>>>>>>>> </Professor Sipser agreed> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *You can ignore the above forever, that does not make it away* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I do not ignore the above. I recently posted an example of it: >>>>>>>> a simulating HD correctly reporting non-halting after detecting >>>>>>>> a tight loop in the computation represented by its input. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The problem with the above is with YOU. (You >>>>>>>> misinterpret/misapply what Sipser says.) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And of course your entire purpose behind quoting the above is >>>>>>>> just an appeal to authority. You know that's a fallacy, because >>>>>>>> from time to time you accuse others of doing it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> His own claim that D does not reach the pathological part >>>>>>>>>>> (after line 03), displays already that the simulation is >>>>>>>>>>> unable to process the pathological part. But the simulation >>>>>>>>>>> introduces a new halting problem (recursive simulation), >>>>>>>>>>> which he thinks is an answer for the original halting problem. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You're using PO's phrase "pathological" but that is a bad >>>>>>>>>> (misleading) term because it suggests there is something >>>>>>>>>> WRONG/BAD (aka sick?) in the situation. E.g. H processing >>>>>>>>>> input which is a description of its own source code. There is >>>>>>>>>> nothing whatsoever wrong with that - it's just that PO gets >>>>>>>>>> confused by it and so argues to ban it. Perhaps there is an >>>>>>>>>> alternative term that doesn't have the deliberate connotation >>>>>>>>>> of "sickness". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mike. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Two PhD computer science professors disagree* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> E C R Hehner. *Problems with the Halting Problem*, >>>>>>>>> COMPUTING2011 Symposium on 75 years of Turing Machine and >>>>>>>>> Lambda-Calculus, Karlsruhe Germany, invited, 2011 October >>>>>>>>> 20-21; Advances in Computer Science and Engineering v.10 n.1 >>>>>>>>> p.31-60, 2013 >>>>>>>>> https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/PHP.pdf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> E C R Hehner. *Objective and Subjective Specifications* >>>>>>>>> WST Workshop on Termination, Oxford. 2018 July 18. >>>>>>>>> See https://www.cs.toronto.edu/~hehner/OSS.pdf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Bill Stoddart. *The Halting Paradox* >>>>>>>>> 20 December 2017 >>>>>>>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.05340 >>>>>>>>> arXiv:1906.05340 [cs.LO] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *You can ignore the above forever, that does not make it away* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Well, it kinda DOES. This is just a blatant appeal to authority >>>>>>>> on your part, so it can rightly be ignored. I'll say again - if >>>>>>>> you have some argument to make, argue it yourself in your own >>>>>>>> words rather than attempting to shut down discussion through >>>>>>>> appeal to authority. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Those were my verbatim words that professor Sipser agreed to* >>>>>>> All the people that tried to show how I misinterpreted my own words >>>>>>> utterly failed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Those that claimed Professor Sipser understood my words >>>>>>> differently than >>>>>>> I did had only one basis that I remember being presented that is >>>>>>> easily >>>>>>> proven false. *They tried to get away with contradicting this* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT >>>>>>> HALT >>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT >>>>>>> HALT >>>>>>> DD correctly emulated by any HH that can possibly exist DOES NOT >>>>>>> HALT >>>>>> >>>>>> It does. >>>>>> >>>>>> Has been proven. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *I say that you know you are a liar until after you show the steps* >>>> >>>> DD will halt (Remember, I am not saying the somulaiton by HH, but >>>> that DD itself will halt). >>>> >>> >>> That IS the strawman deception that might possibly (I hope not) >>> get you condemned to Hell. >>> >> >> What is strawman about it? >> >> I am just using the actual definitions that YOU like to ignore and >> make lies about. > > You may condemn yourself to Hell by even asking that question. > I hope not. I myself wouldn't risk it. > I guess you think God hates people who bring out the Truth, What is wrong about asking someone to explain themselves? I think your problem is that you just don't know anything about what you are talking about, and are grasping for anything you can try to sling at it. You are just stuck with all your bad argument that have shown that your argument is just POOP.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-03 21:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3lv7c$8kuk$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106213 |
On 6/3/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/3/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/3/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/3/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/3/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/3/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> *I say that you know you are a liar until after you show the steps* >>>>> >>>>> DD will halt (Remember, I am not saying the somulaiton by HH, but >>>>> that DD itself will halt). >>>>> >>>> >>>> That IS the strawman deception that might possibly (I hope not) >>>> get you condemned to Hell. >>>> >>> >>> What is strawman about it? >>> >>> I am just using the actual definitions that YOU like to ignore and >>> make lies about. >> >> You may condemn yourself to Hell by even asking that question. >> I hope not. I myself wouldn't risk it. >> > > I guess you think God hates people who bring out the Truth, > Yet because you know that you keep changing the subject from DD correctly simulated by HH to the directly executed DD(DD) *AS A FREAKING REBUTTAL* *AS A FREAKING REBUTTAL* *AS A FREAKING REBUTTAL* *AS A FREAKING REBUTTAL* *AS A FREAKING REBUTTAL* THIS MEANS THAT YOU KNOW YOU ARE USING DECEPTION AND THIS MIGHT CONDEMN YOU TO HELL. I truly hope not. -- 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 | 2024-06-03 22:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3lvii$2uv03$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106215 |
On 6/3/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/3/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/3/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/3/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/3/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/3/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/3/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *I say that you know you are a liar until after you show the steps* >>>>>> >>>>>> DD will halt (Remember, I am not saying the somulaiton by HH, but >>>>>> that DD itself will halt). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That IS the strawman deception that might possibly (I hope not) >>>>> get you condemned to Hell. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What is strawman about it? >>>> >>>> I am just using the actual definitions that YOU like to ignore and >>>> make lies about. >>> >>> You may condemn yourself to Hell by even asking that question. >>> I hope not. I myself wouldn't risk it. >>> >> >> I guess you think God hates people who bring out the Truth, >> > > Yet because you know that you keep changing the subject from DD > correctly simulated by HH to the directly executed DD(DD) Because you keep on mentioning about DD Halting, which IS about the direct execution of DD > > *AS A FREAKING REBUTTAL* > *AS A FREAKING REBUTTAL* > *AS A FREAKING REBUTTAL* > *AS A FREAKING REBUTTAL* > *AS A FREAKING REBUTTAL* Because it is > > THIS MEANS THAT YOU KNOW YOU ARE USING > DECEPTION AND THIS MIGHT CONDEMN YOU TO HELL. I truly hope not. > No, YOU don't seem to know that your repeated lying has doomed you to a life in the lake of fire. You might not think you have lied, but that is because you have seared your conscious by your repeated lying so you no longer understand what is truth and what is a lie. You may have started that when you convinced yourself you were like God, so God turned you over to your own wickedness. Which would also explaim your attraction to kiddie porn and the like.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-04 12:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3nhjf$gatu$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106218 |
On 6/3/2024 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/3/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/3/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/3/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/3/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/3/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/3/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/3/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *I say that you know you are a liar until after you show the steps* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DD will halt (Remember, I am not saying the somulaiton by HH, but >>>>>>> that DD itself will halt). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That IS the strawman deception that might possibly (I hope not) >>>>>> get you condemned to Hell. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What is strawman about it? >>>>> >>>>> I am just using the actual definitions that YOU like to ignore and >>>>> make lies about. >>>> >>>> You may condemn yourself to Hell by even asking that question. >>>> I hope not. I myself wouldn't risk it. >>>> >>> >>> I guess you think God hates people who bring out the Truth, >>> >> >> Yet because you know that you keep changing the subject from DD >> correctly simulated by HH to the directly executed DD(DD) > > Because you keep on mentioning about DD Halting, > which IS about the direct execution of DD Only when one contradicts the definition of a decider that must compute the mapping FROM ITS INPUTS BASED ON THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR OF THESE INPUTS (as measured by DD correctly simulated by HH). When we go ahead and contradict this definition then the *HALTING PROBLEM IS STILL WRONG IN A DIFFERENT WAY* When D is defined to do the opposite of whatever yes/no an answer that H provides then the counter-example input is precisely isomorphic to the question: Is this sentence: "This sentence is not true." true or false? The theory of computation may be ignorant of the details of how the context of who is asked a question changes the meaning of this question, none-the-less this cannot be ignored. It is and remains incorrect for the theory of computation to ignore this. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-04 21:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v3og4f$328ec$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106246 |
On 6/4/24 1:06 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/3/2024 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/3/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/3/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/3/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/3/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/3/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/3/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/3/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *I say that you know you are a liar until after you show the >>>>>>>>> steps* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> DD will halt (Remember, I am not saying the somulaiton by HH, >>>>>>>> but that DD itself will halt). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That IS the strawman deception that might possibly (I hope not) >>>>>>> get you condemned to Hell. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What is strawman about it? >>>>>> >>>>>> I am just using the actual definitions that YOU like to ignore and >>>>>> make lies about. >>>>> >>>>> You may condemn yourself to Hell by even asking that question. >>>>> I hope not. I myself wouldn't risk it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I guess you think God hates people who bring out the Truth, >>>> >>> >>> Yet because you know that you keep changing the subject from DD >>> correctly simulated by HH to the directly executed DD(DD) >> >> Because you keep on mentioning about DD Halting, which IS about the >> direct execution of DD > > Only when one contradicts the definition of a decider that must > compute the mapping FROM ITS INPUTS BASED ON THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR > OF THESE INPUTS (as measured by DD correctly simulated by HH). Please show a source for your LIE that the definition is based on the "correct simulation by HH" The ACTUAL definition is as defined by the mathematical function it is trying to compute, which for a halt decider is "Halts" which returns true if the machine described by the input will halt in a finite number of steps with the provided input, and false if it will never halt even after an unbounded number of steps. > > When we go ahead and contradict this definition then the > *HALTING PROBLEM IS STILL WRONG IN A DIFFERENT WAY* Nope. YOU are wrong. > > When D is defined to do the opposite of whatever yes/no > an answer that H provides then the counter-example input > is precisely isomorphic to the question: > Is this sentence: "This sentence is not true." true or false? Nope, because the answer that H doesn't give is right. There IS a correct answer for the input, it just is fact that H doesn't give it. Somehow you think that deterministic algorithms have something like free will and can give different answer as needed, they can't. And you idea that they can says you don't understand the fundamental properties of programs. I wonder if the issue is that you lost your free will in a deal with the devil, and you are trying to prove that you can get it back. > > The theory of computation may be ignorant of the details of > how the context of who is asked a question changes the meaning > of this question, none-the-less this cannot be ignored. > It is and remains incorrect for the theory of computation > to ignore this. > Contex CAN change the meaning, if the question is subjective, but deciders can only be asked OBJECTIVE questions, as that is all the mathematics allows to be expressed. Of course, since your logic system appears not to be able to handle actual mathematics as it is limited to what Prolog can handle, so that is beyond your abilities.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 10:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <v3p7pa$t37n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106246 |
Op 04.jun.2024 om 19:06 schreef olcott:
> On 6/3/2024 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/3/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/3/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/3/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/3/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/3/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/3/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/3/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> *I say that you know you are a liar until after you show the
>>>>>>>>> steps*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DD will halt (Remember, I am not saying the somulaiton by HH,
>>>>>>>> but that DD itself will halt).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That IS the strawman deception that might possibly (I hope not)
>>>>>>> get you condemned to Hell.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is strawman about it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am just using the actual definitions that YOU like to ignore and
>>>>>> make lies about.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may condemn yourself to Hell by even asking that question.
>>>>> I hope not. I myself wouldn't risk it.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I guess you think God hates people who bring out the Truth,
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yet because you know that you keep changing the subject from DD
>>> correctly simulated by HH to the directly executed DD(DD)
>>
>> Because you keep on mentioning about DD Halting, which IS about the
>> direct execution of DD
>
> Only when one contradicts the definition of a decider that must
> compute the mapping FROM ITS INPUTS BASED ON THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR
> OF THESE INPUTS (as measured by DD correctly simulated by HH).
>
> When we go ahead and contradict this definition then the
> *HALTING PROBLEM IS STILL WRONG IN A DIFFERENT WAY*
>
> When D is defined to do the opposite of whatever yes/no
> an answer that H provides then the counter-example input
> is precisely isomorphic to the question:
> Is this sentence: "This sentence is not true." true or false?
This has nothing to do with your problem, because you admitted that the
simulation does not even reach the contradictory part.
Even the sentence: "This is a sentence." is false according to your
logic, because your decider reports that even main in the following
example does not halt:
typedef int (*ptr)(); // ptr is pointer to int function in C
int H(ptr p, ptr i);
int main()
{
H(main, 0);
}
There is no contradiction in main. It is only H that is unable to
simulate itself to a final state. So, H diagnoses itself as non-halting,
which indicates that there is something wrong with this method.
Get the cream out of your eyes!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-05 09:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <v3prd1$1003g$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106301 |
On 6/5/2024 3:31 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 04.jun.2024 om 19:06 schreef olcott: >> On 6/3/2024 9:53 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/3/24 10:47 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/3/2024 9:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/3/24 10:09 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/3/2024 8:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/3/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/3/2024 8:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/3/24 9:05 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *I say that you know you are a liar until after you show the >>>>>>>>>> steps* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> DD will halt (Remember, I am not saying the somulaiton by HH, >>>>>>>>> but that DD itself will halt). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That IS the strawman deception that might possibly (I hope not) >>>>>>>> get you condemned to Hell. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What is strawman about it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am just using the actual definitions that YOU like to ignore >>>>>>> and make lies about. >>>>>> >>>>>> You may condemn yourself to Hell by even asking that question. >>>>>> I hope not. I myself wouldn't risk it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I guess you think God hates people who bring out the Truth, >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yet because you know that you keep changing the subject from DD >>>> correctly simulated by HH to the directly executed DD(DD) >>> >>> Because you keep on mentioning about DD Halting, which IS about the >>> direct execution of DD >> >> Only when one contradicts the definition of a decider that must >> compute the mapping FROM ITS INPUTS BASED ON THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR >> OF THESE INPUTS (as measured by DD correctly simulated by HH). >> >> When we go ahead and contradict this definition then the >> *HALTING PROBLEM IS STILL WRONG IN A DIFFERENT WAY* >> >> When D is defined to do the opposite of whatever yes/no >> an answer that H provides then the counter-example input >> is precisely isomorphic to the question: >> Is this sentence: "This sentence is not true." true or false? > > This has nothing to do with your problem, because you admitted that the > simulation does not even reach the contradictory part. Hence the reason why: *Termination Analyzer H is Not Fooled by Pathological Input D* https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369971402_Termination_Analyzer_H_is_Not_Fooled_by_Pathological_Input_D -- 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 | 2024-06-04 17:25 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Why is Olcott so ignorant, anyway? |
| Message-ID | <v3nbkn$1ot6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106183 |
On 4/06/24 02:47, olcott wrote: > *My concise summation of the error* > The way that the halting problem is conventionally understood is that H > must correctly answer yes or no to an input that contradicts both > answers, The error in your statement: Each input only contradicts one answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-03 13:38 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <v3k6ek$3rtq1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106095 |
On 2024-06-03 00:16:31 +0000, immibis said: > The halting problem says you can't find a Turing machine that tells > whether executing each other Turing machine will halt. Simulation > has nothing to do with the question. His simulator is productive. It can produce long traces, especially from recursive simulations. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 17 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17]
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web