Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #106862 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-06-09 22:54 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-06-12 08:24 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 373 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-09 22:54 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 08:35 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-10 12:59 +0300
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:33 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-11 12:00 +0300
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:10 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 09:36 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 15:25 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 10:36 -0500
Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS --- joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-10 17:06 +0000
Re: D simulated by H unproved for THREE YEARS --- olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 12:31 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 07:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 21:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-10 23:32 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-10 23:31 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- Richard admits his error Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 07:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 12:12 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 18:47 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 18:23 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-06-12 02:20 +0200
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 19:57 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:32 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 22:34 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 07:33 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 11:50 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 18:59 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 18:12 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:41 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 18:53 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 20:37 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:19 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 21:50 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:54 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:06 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:57 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 22:24 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:45 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 22:58 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 07:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 10:32 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:34 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 21:24 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 20:39 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 23:04 -0400
H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 22:14 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 23:44 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 23:13 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 07:39 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 08:15 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-14 15:54 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 12:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 19:27 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-15 11:34 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 07:21 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-15 15:33 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 08:24 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:51 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-16 12:15 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 07:59 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-17 10:10 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-17 07:51 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-18 10:44 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 07:46 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-18 18:36 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 10:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-18 19:27 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-18 11:36 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-19 11:07 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-19 08:37 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-20 08:04 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 00:15 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-20 17:42 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 10:04 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-20 16:16 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 11:28 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-21 10:05 +0200
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 08:13 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 10:27 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-20 21:55 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 21:04 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-20 22:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 21:46 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-20 22:59 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 22:30 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-20 23:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 23:01 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 10:36 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 11:56 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:06 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 12:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:26 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 12:38 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 13:18 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 14:42 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 13:53 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 15:05 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 14:19 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 15:33 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 14:45 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 16:00 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 15:52 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 17:10 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 16:25 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 17:46 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 17:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 18:58 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 18:11 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 19:36 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 18:27 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 19:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 22:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 04:24 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 23:31 -0500
Re: Dogma -- other deciders joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 08:59 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:03 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:12 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 08:59 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:12 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 04:09 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 23:18 -0500
Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 08:47 +0000
Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:08 -0500
Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 14:36 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:05 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:15 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:35 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-22 12:08 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 07:58 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:22 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 08:49 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 10:41 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-21 10:16 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 08:21 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 10:43 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-22 14:06 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-22 20:39 +0200
DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 13:47 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-22 20:53 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 13:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 15:11 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 09:22 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 08:16 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-25 13:46 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 09:03 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-25 14:32 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 16:28 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 12:21 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 20:25 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2024-06-25 15:04 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Ben fails to understand computable functions olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 09:21 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Ben fails to understand computable functions Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-25 14:46 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 12:45 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 21:05 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 22:23 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 21:29 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 22:55 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 22:29 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 23:35 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 22:42 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 07:02 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 08:42 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:41 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 18:46 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:55 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 19:20 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 20:42 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 02:15 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 02:30 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 21:52 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 03:06 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:29 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 22:38 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 22:39 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:51 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 23:16 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 22:34 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 07:34 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 08:35 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 19:57 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:13 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 22:39 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 23:15 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 22:30 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 07:34 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 09:00 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 19:57 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:04 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-27 03:16 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:35 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 21:00 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-26 11:41 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 07:58 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-26 19:41 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-27 10:36 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 09:10 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-27 18:35 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 11:56 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-27 17:25 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 12:38 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-28 12:25 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 10:21 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-28 16:21 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-29 11:05 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-27 19:57 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-28 11:30 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 07:40 -0500
Re: Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-28 13:04 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-28 23:49 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-29 11:10 +0300
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2024-06-25 16:41 +0100
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 10:56 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 19:27 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 19:34 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 21:38 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 20:59 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:16 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:25 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:48 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:52 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 23:43 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:06 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:17 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:50 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:56 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 23:36 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 22:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 23:48 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 22:55 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 06:56 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 08:35 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:51 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:23 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 10:46 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:03 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:18 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:41 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:11 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:24 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:31 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:39 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:50 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:04 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 12:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:23 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 12:33 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:41 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 13:03 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 14:10 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 14:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:06 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 18:28 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:51 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 19:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 21:11 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 20:57 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 22:32 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 22:16 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 07:44 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 08:21 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 13:30 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-15 11:48 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 07:26 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 09:52 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:09 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:17 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Truth Itself is not Broken. (Just misunderstood) Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:24 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-14 08:38 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 07:34 -0500
H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 09:37 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:00 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:07 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 11:12 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 10:54 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-15 16:11 +0000
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:19 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:26 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:31 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:41 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 12:12 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:23 -0500
H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 11:57 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 13:17 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 12:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 14:08 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 13:55 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:15 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 18:40 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 19:57 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 19:44 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 21:13 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 20:39 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-15 22:02 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-15 22:22 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-16 11:34 +0300
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 07:53 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 07:44 -0400
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-16 08:04 -0500
Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-16 13:30 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 08:05 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 07:55 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules onion@anon.invalid (Mr Ön!on) - 2024-06-13 14:52 +0100
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄ 🏳️🌈D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules🏳️🌈 ❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄❄ Snowflake ❄ (Was: 🏳️🌈D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules🏳️🌈) 🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈Jen🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 Dershmender 💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🐶笛🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2024-06-13 14:51 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 21:28 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 08:42 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 08:52 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 07:58 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 16:53 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 12:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- simulating vs. deciding joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:38 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- simulating vs. deciding olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 07:07 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-11 22:30 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-11 22:21 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 07:33 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 11:57 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:03 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 18:25 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 19:45 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 19:37 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 20:52 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:27 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 21:36 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 20:50 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:16 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:25 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 22:37 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 21:48 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:08 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 22:26 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-12 23:49 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-12 23:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 08:23 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 07:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 08:37 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:19 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:19 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:22 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 23:06 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 08:12 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 08:07 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transfermentations joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:06 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transfermentations olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 13:07 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transfermentations Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:30 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transfermentations olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:31 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:27 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:30 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 08:49 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 08:10 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-13 14:35 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 10:08 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:26 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 07:05 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 19:27 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 19:40 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 21:58 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:06 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-14 22:05 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-14 21:07 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:35 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- specification joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-13 17:09 +0000
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-13 22:31 -0400
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-13 21:33 -0500
Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-12 08:24 +0200
Page 2 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 19 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 19:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4arp0$1a7uo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106949 |
On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: > Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit : > ... >> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider >> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the >> business of H. > > LOL > There are no finite string transformations from the input to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) is irrelevant. -- 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 | 2024-06-11 22:32 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4b1c3$3nf9n$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106950 |
On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit : >> ... >>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider >>> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the >>> business of H. >> >> LOL >> > > There are no finite string transformations from the input > to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) > is irrelevant. > Of course there is. That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. It will transform the input string into the behavior of the directly executed machine. Your H just needs to figure out what that behavor would be. It CAN be done for many (but not all) inputs. The not-all is what makes the problem uncomputable, which seems to put it outside your ability to understand it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 22:34 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4b50m$1f89t$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106962 |
On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:
>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :
>>> ...
>>>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider
>>>> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the
>>>> business of H.
>>>
>>> LOL
>>>
>>
>> There are no finite string transformations from the input
>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D)
>> is irrelevant.
>>
>
> Of course there is.
>
> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is.
>
Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips
though the cracks of vagueness.
Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that
DDD terminates normally.
typedef void (*ptr)();
u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I);
void DDD(int (*x)())
{
HH(x, x);
}
int main()
{
HH(DDD,DDD);
}
_DDD()
[00001df3] 55 push ebp
[00001df4] 8bec mov ebp,esp
[00001df6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
[00001df9] 50 push eax
[00001dfa] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
[00001dfd] 51 push ecx
[00001dfe] e830f5ffff call 00001333
[00001e03] 83c408 add esp,+08
[00001e06] 5d pop ebp
[00001e07] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0021) [00001e07]
--
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 | 2024-06-12 07:33 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4c12r$3oop0$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106970 |
On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :
>>>> ...
>>>>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider
>>>>> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the
>>>>> business of H.
>>>>
>>>> LOL
>>>>
>>>
>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input
>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D)
>>> is irrelevant.
>>>
>>
>> Of course there is.
>>
>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is.
>>
>
> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips
> though the cracks of vagueness.
>
> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that
> DDD terminates normally.
WHy? I never claimed that to be true.
The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter
example exists, it might just not be discovered.
Your question shows that you don't understand that essential property of
logic.
Your reliance on Strawmen, Red Herrings, and other dishonest dodges just
shows that you don't have any actual logical argument foryou poosition,
so you are going to try deceit.
>
> typedef void (*ptr)();
> u32 HH(ptr P, ptr I);
>
> void DDD(int (*x)())
> {
> HH(x, x);
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> HH(DDD,DDD);
> }
>
> _DDD()
> [00001df3] 55 push ebp
> [00001df4] 8bec mov ebp,esp
> [00001df6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08]
> [00001df9] 50 push eax
> [00001dfa] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08]
> [00001dfd] 51 push ecx
> [00001dfe] e830f5ffff call 00001333
> [00001e03] 83c408 add esp,+08
> [00001e06] 5d pop ebp
> [00001e07] c3 ret
> Size in bytes:(0021) [00001e07]
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 11:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4cjl7$1o4b4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106979 |
On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit : >>>>> ... >>>>>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider >>>>>> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the >>>>>> business of H. >>>>> >>>>> LOL >>>>> >>>> >>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input >>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) >>>> is irrelevant. >>>> >>> >>> Of course there is. >>> >>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. >>> >> >> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips >> though the cracks of vagueness. >> >> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that >> DDD terminates normally. > > WHy? I never claimed that to be true. > > The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter > example exists, it might just not be discovered. > On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism* The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker for halt decider H. When we compute the mapping from the input to H(D,D) this must apply a set of finite string transformation rules (specified by the semantics of the x86 language) to this input. The appropriate finite string transformation rules are D correctly simulated by H. There is no mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D). If there was such a mapping then the detailed steps of D correctly simulated by H where D terminates normally could be provided. Thus I have proven H(D,D) is not allowed to report on the behavior of the directly executed D(D) because H is required to report on the mapping form its input and there is no mapping that reaches the behavior of D(D). _D() [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp [00000d1d](01) c3 ret Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] -- 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 | 2024-06-12 18:59 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4d991$3qbnc$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106990 |
On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit : >>>>>> ... >>>>>>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider >>>>>>> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the >>>>>>> business of H. >>>>>> >>>>>> LOL >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input >>>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) >>>>> is irrelevant. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Of course there is. >>>> >>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. >>>> >>> >>> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips >>> though the cracks of vagueness. >>> >>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that >>> DDD terminates normally. >> >> WHy? I never claimed that to be true. >> >> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter >> example exists, it might just not be discovered. >> > > On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ > > *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism* > The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker > for halt decider H. Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the input when directly run. > > When we compute the mapping from the input to H(D,D) this > must apply a set of finite string transformation rules > (specified by the semantics of the x86 language) to this input. No, we apply the DEFINTION of the problem that H is claiming to solve. The finite-string transformation that does this is an actual UTM. > > The appropriate finite string transformation rules are D > correctly simulated by H. Then H just is NOT a Halt Decider, and you are just admitting to LYING about that for the last decades, as the transformation rules are that of a the UTM. Unles you can provide a RELAIBLE SOURCE for your claim that it is "the correct simulation by H", you are just admitting that you have been a LIAR for this for the past decades. > > There is no mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior > of D(D). If there was such a mapping then the detailed steps > of D correctly simulated by H where D terminates normally > could be provided. Of course there is, that is what a UTM does. But since HB isn't a UTM, your claim just show you to be a lying idiot. Can you show a reference that the transformation needs to be something done by a particular decider? Failure to provide that also prove you to be just a idiotic pathological liar. > > Thus I have proven H(D,D) is not allowed to report on the > behavior of the directly executed D(D) because H is required > to report on the mapping form its input and there is no mapping > that reaches the behavior of D(D). > Nope, you have shown that you think "unsubstantiated claim" make up a proof. Thus showing you are totally UNqualified to be discussing logic. > _D() > [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp > [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D > [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D > [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H > [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 > [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax > [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 > [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax > [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c > [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 > [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp > [00000d1d](01) c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 18:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4da12$1sioe$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106999 |
On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider >>>>>>>> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the >>>>>>>> business of H. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> LOL >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input >>>>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) >>>>>> is irrelevant. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Of course there is. >>>>> >>>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips >>>> though the cracks of vagueness. >>>> >>>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that >>>> DDD terminates normally. >>> >>> WHy? I never claimed that to be true. >>> >>> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter >>> example exists, it might just not be discovered. >>> >> >> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >> >> *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism* >> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker >> for halt decider H. > > Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the > input when directly run. > *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS* *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior* *A LEAP OF FAITH DOES NOT COUNT IN THE THEORY OF COMPUTATION* *SHOW ME THE DETAILED STEPS* _D() [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp [00000d1d](01) c3 ret Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] -- 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 | 2024-06-12 19:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4dbmf$3qbnc$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107001 |
On 6/12/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider >>>>>>>>> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the >>>>>>>>> business of H. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> LOL >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input >>>>>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) >>>>>>> is irrelevant. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course there is. >>>>>> >>>>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips >>>>> though the cracks of vagueness. >>>>> >>>>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that >>>>> DDD terminates normally. >>>> >>>> WHy? I never claimed that to be true. >>>> >>>> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter >>>> example exists, it might just not be discovered. >>>> >>> >>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>> >>> *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism* >>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker >>> for halt decider H. >> >> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the >> input when directly run. >> > > *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS* > *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior* > NO, because I never said that H COULD do that computation. That is whythe question is DOES THERE EXIST a machine that can do it. And the answer is no. > *A LEAP OF FAITH DOES NOT COUNT IN THE THEORY OF COMPUTATION* > *SHOW ME THE DETAILED STEPS* WHo needs a leap of "faith" We can look at it from the higher level, and not get into the details of this H (that you don't provide here). Since H(D,D) is claimed to correctly return 0, then we KNOW that the direct exection of D(D), when it calls H(D,D) will eventually see that call return with the value of 0. This follows from the fact that H is claimed to be a pure function, and thus ALL calls to it with the same input MUST produce the same result, thus simple inspection of the code at the C programming level shows that D(D) Must Halt, and thus the UTM simulstion of the input to H, that represents that input must also halt. Your FALSE claim that H is supposed to report on its non-existant or mis-defined "correct simulation" is just proved to be the lie it is, as you have NEVER been able to show any source that supports it, only your invalid logic that it is the only thing it could be, even though it isn't defined that way (showing your logic process is based on lies being an acceptable method to do things). > > _D() > [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp > [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D > [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D > [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H > [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 > [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax > [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 > [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax > [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c > [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 > [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp > [00000d1d](01) c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 18:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4dcd6$1sioe$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107003 |
On 6/12/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider >>>>>>>>>> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the >>>>>>>>>> business of H. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> LOL >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input >>>>>>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) >>>>>>>> is irrelevant. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Of course there is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips >>>>>> though the cracks of vagueness. >>>>>> >>>>>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that >>>>>> DDD terminates normally. >>>>> >>>>> WHy? I never claimed that to be true. >>>>> >>>>> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter >>>>> example exists, it might just not be discovered. >>>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>> >>>> *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism* >>>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker >>>> for halt decider H. >>> >>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the >>> input when directly run. >>> >> >> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS* >> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior* >> > > NO, because I never said that H COULD do that computation. That is > whythe question is DOES THERE EXIST a machine that can do it. > There are no finite string transformation rules that H(D,D) can use to transform its finite string input into the behavior that you expect. Halt Deciders are only allowed to report on the behavior that they can map their finite string input to. You are finally admitting that you are expecting H to report on something that it cannot see and not report on that it does see. _D() [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp [00000d1d](01) c3 ret Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] -- 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 | 2024-06-12 20:37 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4df0h$3qbnd$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107006 |
On 6/12/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider >>>>>>>>>>> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the >>>>>>>>>>> business of H. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> LOL >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input >>>>>>>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) >>>>>>>>> is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Of course there is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips >>>>>>> though the cracks of vagueness. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that >>>>>>> DDD terminates normally. >>>>>> >>>>>> WHy? I never claimed that to be true. >>>>>> >>>>>> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter >>>>>> example exists, it might just not be discovered. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>> >>>>> *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism* >>>>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker >>>>> for halt decider H. >>>> >>>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the >>>> input when directly run. >>>> >>> >>> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS* >>> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior* >>> >> >> NO, because I never said that H COULD do that computation. That is >> whythe question is DOES THERE EXIST a machine that can do it. >> > > There are no finite string transformation rules that H(D,D) > can use to transform its finite string input into the behavior > that you expect. So? There is a mapping, and thus the question is VALID. That there is no finite steps to compute that mapping meaning that the Halting Function is just uncomputable. That is a perfectly fine result. > > Halt Deciders are only allowed to report on the behavior that > they can map their finite string input to. > Nope, you have the issues backwards. They only CAN report on what they can map with a finite algortithm. To be a Halt Decider, they MUST try to compute the defined mapping, which, as you state, can not be done > You are finally admitting that you are expecting H to report > on something that it cannot see and not report on that it does see. Yep. To be a Halt decider, it must try to compute something that isn't defined by a finite algorithm. Since, it turns out we can actually PROVE that there is no finite algorithm that CAN do it, we can conclude, as the Theorem states, that the Halting Functino is uncomputable. Nothing wrong with that. > > _D() > [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp > [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D > [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D > [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H > [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 > [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax > [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 > [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax > [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c > [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 > [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp > [00000d1d](01) c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 20:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4dhf5$1tsdf$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107009 |
On 6/12/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider >>>>>>>>>>>> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the >>>>>>>>>>>> business of H. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> LOL >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input >>>>>>>>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) >>>>>>>>>> is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Of course there is. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips >>>>>>>> though the cracks of vagueness. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that >>>>>>>> DDD terminates normally. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WHy? I never claimed that to be true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no >>>>>>> counter example exists, it might just not be discovered. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>>> >>>>>> *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism* >>>>>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker >>>>>> for halt decider H. >>>>> >>>>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the >>>>> input when directly run. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS* >>>> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior* >>>> >>> >>> NO, because I never said that H COULD do that computation. That is >>> whythe question is DOES THERE EXIST a machine that can do it. >>> >> >> There are no finite string transformation rules that H(D,D) >> can use to transform its finite string input into the behavior >> that you expect. > > So? > > There is a mapping, and thus the question is VALID. > > That there is no finite steps to compute that mapping meaning that the > Halting Function is just uncomputable. > I am not saying there is no mapping from the question to the correct answer. I am saying there is no mapping from the input TO THE QUESTION. H IS NOT EVEN BEING ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 21:50 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4dja1$3qbnd$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107014 |
On 6/12/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider >>>>>>>>>>>>> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> business of H. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> LOL >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input >>>>>>>>>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) >>>>>>>>>>> is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Of course there is. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips >>>>>>>>> though the cracks of vagueness. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that >>>>>>>>> DDD terminates normally. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WHy? I never claimed that to be true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no >>>>>>>> counter example exists, it might just not be discovered. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism* >>>>>>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker >>>>>>> for halt decider H. >>>>>> >>>>>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by >>>>>> the input when directly run. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS* >>>>> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior* >>>>> >>>> >>>> NO, because I never said that H COULD do that computation. That is >>>> whythe question is DOES THERE EXIST a machine that can do it. >>>> >>> >>> There are no finite string transformation rules that H(D,D) >>> can use to transform its finite string input into the behavior >>> that you expect. >> >> So? >> >> There is a mapping, and thus the question is VALID. >> >> That there is no finite steps to compute that mapping meaning that the >> Halting Function is just uncomputable. >> > > I am not saying there is no mapping from the question > to the correct answer. > > I am saying there is no mapping from the input TO THE QUESTION. > H IS NOT EVEN BEING ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). > So, you admit that you are lying about H being a Halt Decider. Because Halt Deciders *ARE* being asked about the behavior of the machine their input describes, in this case D(D). So, you are just admitting that you have been LYING about what H is, and what problem you have been working on. That just shows that you are just a pathological liar, who just lives to lie about things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 20:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4djhf$1tsdf$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107020 |
On 6/12/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> business of H. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input >>>>>>>>>>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) >>>>>>>>>>>> is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Of course there is. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips >>>>>>>>>> though the cracks of vagueness. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that >>>>>>>>>> DDD terminates normally. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WHy? I never claimed that to be true. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no >>>>>>>>> counter example exists, it might just not be discovered. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism* >>>>>>>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker >>>>>>>> for halt decider H. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by >>>>>>> the input when directly run. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS* >>>>>> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> NO, because I never said that H COULD do that computation. That is >>>>> whythe question is DOES THERE EXIST a machine that can do it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> There are no finite string transformation rules that H(D,D) >>>> can use to transform its finite string input into the behavior >>>> that you expect. >>> >>> So? >>> >>> There is a mapping, and thus the question is VALID. >>> >>> That there is no finite steps to compute that mapping meaning that >>> the Halting Function is just uncomputable. >>> >> >> I am not saying there is no mapping from the question >> to the correct answer. >> >> I am saying there is no mapping from the input TO THE QUESTION. >> H IS NOT EVEN BEING ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). >> > > So, you admit that you are lying about H being a Halt Decider. > No I admit that you are too stupid to understand what I am saying. > Because Halt Deciders *ARE* being asked about the behavior of the > machine their input describes, in this case D(D). > This never has been precisely correct. That is a dumbed down version for people that do not really understand these things. > So, you are just admitting that you have been LYING about what H is, and > what problem you have been working on. > All that I am acknowledging is that you are too freaking stupid to understand what COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM AN INPUT actually means. > That just shows that you are just a pathological liar, who just lives to > lie about things. -- 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 | 2024-06-12 22:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4dk7b$3qbnc$8@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107022 |
On 6/12/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 7:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 7:53 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> business of H. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> LOL >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input >>>>>>>>>>>>> to H to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) >>>>>>>>>>>>> is irrelevant. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Of course there is. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Unless we are as concrete as the x86 language truth slips >>>>>>>>>>> though the cracks of vagueness. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that >>>>>>>>>>> DDD terminates normally. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> WHy? I never claimed that to be true. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no >>>>>>>>>> counter example exists, it might just not be discovered. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *This is still Truthmaker Maximalism* >>>>>>>>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker >>>>>>>>> for halt decider H. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by >>>>>>>> the input when directly run. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS* >>>>>>> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> NO, because I never said that H COULD do that computation. That is >>>>>> whythe question is DOES THERE EXIST a machine that can do it. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are no finite string transformation rules that H(D,D) >>>>> can use to transform its finite string input into the behavior >>>>> that you expect. >>>> >>>> So? >>>> >>>> There is a mapping, and thus the question is VALID. >>>> >>>> That there is no finite steps to compute that mapping meaning that >>>> the Halting Function is just uncomputable. >>>> >>> >>> I am not saying there is no mapping from the question >>> to the correct answer. >>> >>> I am saying there is no mapping from the input TO THE QUESTION. >>> H IS NOT EVEN BEING ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). >>> >> >> So, you admit that you are lying about H being a Halt Decider. >> > > No I admit that you are too stupid to understand what I am saying. How is it a H > >> Because Halt Deciders *ARE* being asked about the behavior of the >> machine their input describes, in this case D(D). >> > > This never has been precisely correct. That is a dumbed down > version for people that do not really understand these things. Source for that claim? and not that it is just another of your unverifiable false claims? You have a big list of things you have claimed but NEVER were able to show a proof, and thus effectively admitted that you made up your claims, which means they can be considered to be LIE. > >> So, you are just admitting that you have been LYING about what H is, >> and what problem you have been working on. >> > > All that I am acknowledging is that you are too freaking stupid > to understand what COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM AN INPUT actually means. > And you are too stupid to understand that the definition doesn't NEED H to be able to compute the mapping, because it might be uncomputable. Maybe you have shown that if Halting was supposed to have been a computable function, they failed at it, but it was never claimed to have been actually computable. The goal was to hope they could find a way to compute it, as that would have helped handle a lot of problems that were coming up in mathematics and logic. There is a big underpinning that the same sort of essence of logic that makes Halting non-computable, also makes many logic system incomplete (the existance of statements that turn out to be true, but can't be proven in their system) and which breaks the ability to have a Truth Pedicate that ALWAYS indicates if a statement it true vs unture (false or not having a truth value). Your logic fails, because you implicitly assume that there must be an method to compute the answer. >> That just shows that you are just a pathological liar, who just lives >> to lie about things. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 21:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4dl3b$225kb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107024 |
On 6/12/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>> I am saying there is no mapping from the input TO THE QUESTION. >>>> H IS NOT EVEN BEING ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). >>>> >>> >>> So, you admit that you are lying about H being a Halt Decider. >>> >> >> No I admit that you are too stupid to understand what I am saying. > > How is it a H > I gave you the source-code. >> >>> Because Halt Deciders *ARE* being asked about the behavior of the >>> machine their input describes, in this case D(D). >>> >> >> This never has been precisely correct. That is a dumbed down >> version for people that do not really understand these things. > > Source for that claim? and not that it is just another of your > unverifiable false claims? > Actual comprehension is my source. That it is over-your-head does not make me incorrect. How do you think that halt deciders figure out the question that they are being asked, do they look up the question on a textbook? > You have a big list of things you have claimed but NEVER were able to > show a proof, and thus effectively admitted that you made up your > claims, which means they can be considered to be LIE. > No it means that the reasoning behind them must be carefully assessed. >> >>> So, you are just admitting that you have been LYING about what H is, >>> and what problem you have been working on. >>> >> >> All that I am acknowledging is that you are too freaking stupid >> to understand what COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM AN INPUT actually means. >> > > And you are too stupid to understand that the definition doesn't NEED H > to be able to compute the mapping, because it might be uncomputable. > When the mapping from the question to a yes or no answer does not exist this is called an undecidable question. When the mapping from the input to the question does not exist this is a whole new issue that no one ever noticed before. > Maybe you have shown that if Halting was supposed to have been a > computable function, they failed at it, but it was never claimed to have > been actually computable. The goal was to hope they could find a way to > compute it, as that would have helped handle a lot of problems that were > coming up in mathematics and logic. > If the input cannot be mapped to the question that you expect then your expectations were incorrect. > There is a big underpinning that the same sort of essence of logic that > makes Halting non-computable, also makes many logic system incomplete > (the existance of statements that turn out to be true, but can't be > proven in their system) and which breaks the ability to have a Truth > Pedicate that ALWAYS indicates if a statement it true vs unture (false > or not having a truth value). > That you are having a hard time understanding this brand new material is reasonable. The biggest problem with this is that you are so sure that I must be incorrect that you hardly pay any attention to what I say. > Your logic fails, because you implicitly assume that there must be an > method to compute the answer. > >>> That just shows that you are just a pathological liar, who just lives >>> to lie about things. >> > -- 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 | 2024-06-12 22:57 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4dn5u$3qbnd$8@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107027 |
On 6/12/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I am saying there is no mapping from the input TO THE QUESTION. >>>>> H IS NOT EVEN BEING ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). >>>>> >>>> >>>> So, you admit that you are lying about H being a Halt Decider. >>>> >>> >>> No I admit that you are too stupid to understand what I am saying. >> >> How is it a H >> > > I gave you the source-code. So? Last time I commented about somethihg from the source code you said that didn't apply. It also, as you have admitted, has bugs in its trace routine, so it can't produce a trace of the quality you seem to want. Do you deny that with the H defined so that H(D,D) will return 0, as it does in your source code that making main() call D(D) that that D(D) will not return? You even posted a trace of that operation, but its trace has the same error that all your traces do, so I don't want to call that "Correct" any more, as that would be a LIE. > >>> >>>> Because Halt Deciders *ARE* being asked about the behavior of the >>>> machine their input describes, in this case D(D). >>>> >>> >>> This never has been precisely correct. That is a dumbed down >>> version for people that do not really understand these things. >> >> Source for that claim? and not that it is just another of your >> unverifiable false claims? >> > > Actual comprehension is my source. That it is over-your-head > does not make me incorrect. I other words, you ADMIT that it is just a "I made itup" up, but it must be true" sort of statement, so doesn't actualuy have an accepted truth-maker for it, so is just a LIE. That's par for the course. That you can't actually show it, shows you ARE incorrect for claiming it. > > How do you think that halt deciders figure out the question that > they are being asked, do they look up the question on a textbook? They don't need to. There Programmer needs to figure that out. Programs don't "think", they "Compute", and do it per their instuctions given to them. You just don't seem to understand the essential nature of Programs do you. > >> You have a big list of things you have claimed but NEVER were able to >> show a proof, and thus effectively admitted that you made up your >> claims, which means they can be considered to be LIE. >> > > No it means that the reasoning behind them must be carefully assessed. But you can't give any actual "reasoning", only your own unsubstantiated claims based on wrong defintions. > >>> >>>> So, you are just admitting that you have been LYING about what H is, >>>> and what problem you have been working on. >>>> >>> >>> All that I am acknowledging is that you are too freaking stupid >>> to understand what COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM AN INPUT actually means. >>> >> >> And you are too stupid to understand that the definition doesn't NEED >> H to be able to compute the mapping, because it might be uncomputable. >> > > When the mapping from the question to a yes or no answer > does not exist this is called an undecidable question. Except the mapping DOES exist. For D0 built on H0 and D1 built on H1 If H0(D0,D0) returns 0, then the mapping of Halts(D0,D0) is True, since D0(D0) will call H0(D0,D0) and get the 0 answer back and it will halt. If H1(D1,D1) returns 1, then the mapping of Halts(D1,D1) is False, since D1(D1) will call H1(D1,D1) and get the 1 answer back and go into an infinite loop. Thus, for every specific H that you can make, it will fall into one of those two classes (or fail to be a proper decider and fail earlier) there *IS* a correcct answer, it just isn't the one that that paticular H gives for that particular D. > > When the mapping from the input to the question does not exist > this is a whole new issue that no one ever noticed before. But it does, you just get confused as you keep changing the question in your argument, but that just seems to be how your logic tends to work (or better said, not work). > >> Maybe you have shown that if Halting was supposed to have been a >> computable function, they failed at it, but it was never claimed to >> have been actually computable. The goal was to hope they could find a >> way to compute it, as that would have helped handle a lot of problems >> that were coming up in mathematics and logic. >> > > If the input cannot be mapped to the question that you expect > then your expectations were incorrect. But it can. Remember, H is DEFINED first, then D, and then there is a correct answer, just not the one that THAT H gave. > >> There is a big underpinning that the same sort of essence of logic >> that makes Halting non-computable, also makes many logic system >> incomplete (the existance of statements that turn out to be true, but >> can't be proven in their system) and which breaks the ability to have >> a Truth Pedicate that ALWAYS indicates if a statement it true vs >> unture (false or not having a truth value). >> > > That you are having a hard time understanding this brand new > material is reasonable. The biggest problem with this is that > you are so sure that I must be incorrect that you hardly pay > any attention to what I say. What "brand new material". You are just making wild claims that you admit you can't back up with accepted truths, so they are just not part of the Computation Theory formal logic system. Just like your father, you have been cast out of the presence of the Truth you want to have, and into your world of LIES. > >> Your logic fails, because you implicitly assume that there must be an >> method to compute the answer. >> >>>> That just shows that you are just a pathological liar, who just >>>> lives to lie about things. >>> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 22:24 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4dop4$22o4a$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107034 |
On 6/12/2024 9:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I am saying there is no mapping from the input TO THE QUESTION. >>>>>> H IS NOT EVEN BEING ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, you admit that you are lying about H being a Halt Decider. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No I admit that you are too stupid to understand what I am saying. >>> >>> How is it a H >>> >> >> I gave you the source-code. > > So? > > Last time I commented about somethihg from the source code you said that > didn't apply. > > It also, as you have admitted, has bugs in its trace routine, so it > can't produce a trace of the quality you seem to want. > I never said anything like that. > Do you deny that with the H defined so that H(D,D) will return 0, as it > does in your source code that making main() call D(D) that that D(D) > will not return? > > You even posted a trace of that operation, but its trace has the same > error that all your traces do, so I don't want to call that "Correct" > any more, as that would be a LIE. > >> >>>> >>>>> Because Halt Deciders *ARE* being asked about the behavior of the >>>>> machine their input describes, in this case D(D). >>>>> >>>> >>>> This never has been precisely correct. That is a dumbed down >>>> version for people that do not really understand these things. >>> >>> Source for that claim? and not that it is just another of your >>> unverifiable false claims? >>> >> >> Actual comprehension is my source. That it is over-your-head >> does not make me incorrect. > > I other words, you ADMIT that it is just a "I made itup" up, but it must > be true" sort of statement, so doesn't actualuy have an accepted > truth-maker for it, so is just a LIE. > > That's par for the course. > > That you can't actually show it, shows you ARE incorrect for claiming it. > >> >> How do you think that halt deciders figure out the question that >> they are being asked, do they look up the question on a textbook? > > They don't need to. There Programmer needs to figure that out. > > Programs don't "think", they "Compute", and do it per their instuctions > given to them. > > You just don't seem to understand the essential nature of Programs do you. > >> >>> You have a big list of things you have claimed but NEVER were able to >>> show a proof, and thus effectively admitted that you made up your >>> claims, which means they can be considered to be LIE. >>> >> >> No it means that the reasoning behind them must be carefully assessed. > > But you can't give any actual "reasoning", only your own unsubstantiated > claims based on wrong defintions. > *COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS* Is currently totally over-your-head yet has a specific meaning using those terms according to their conventional meanings. Tell me in your own words what you think COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS means. -- 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 | 2024-06-12 23:45 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4dq07$3qbnc$12@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107038 |
On 6/12/24 11:24 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 9:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am saying there is no mapping from the input TO THE QUESTION. >>>>>>> H IS NOT EVEN BEING ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> So, you admit that you are lying about H being a Halt Decider. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No I admit that you are too stupid to understand what I am saying. >>>> >>>> How is it a H >>>> >>> >>> I gave you the source-code. >> >> So? >> >> Last time I commented about somethihg from the source code you said >> that didn't apply. >> >> It also, as you have admitted, has bugs in its trace routine, so it >> can't produce a trace of the quality you seem to want. >> > > I never said anything like that. You admitted that it didn't produce the "Correct Simulation" output that it was supposed to produce. The output wasn't the simulation it did, but the execution trace of your decider itself. > >> Do you deny that with the H defined so that H(D,D) will return 0, as >> it does in your source code that making main() call D(D) that that >> D(D) will not return? >> >> You even posted a trace of that operation, but its trace has the same >> error that all your traces do, so I don't want to call that "Correct" >> any more, as that would be a LIE. >> >>> >>>>> >>>>>> Because Halt Deciders *ARE* being asked about the behavior of the >>>>>> machine their input describes, in this case D(D). >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This never has been precisely correct. That is a dumbed down >>>>> version for people that do not really understand these things. >>>> >>>> Source for that claim? and not that it is just another of your >>>> unverifiable false claims? >>>> >>> >>> Actual comprehension is my source. That it is over-your-head >>> does not make me incorrect. >> >> I other words, you ADMIT that it is just a "I made itup" up, but it >> must be true" sort of statement, so doesn't actualuy have an accepted >> truth-maker for it, so is just a LIE. >> >> That's par for the course. >> >> That you can't actually show it, shows you ARE incorrect for claiming it. >> >>> >>> How do you think that halt deciders figure out the question that >>> they are being asked, do they look up the question on a textbook? >> >> They don't need to. There Programmer needs to figure that out. >> >> Programs don't "think", they "Compute", and do it per their >> instuctions given to them. >> >> You just don't seem to understand the essential nature of Programs do >> you. >> >>> >>>> You have a big list of things you have claimed but NEVER were able >>>> to show a proof, and thus effectively admitted that you made up your >>>> claims, which means they can be considered to be LIE. >>>> >>> >>> No it means that the reasoning behind them must be carefully assessed. >> >> But you can't give any actual "reasoning", only your own >> unsubstantiated claims based on wrong defintions. >> > > *COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS* > Is currently totally over-your-head > yet has a specific meaning using those terms > according to their conventional meanings. > > Tell me in your own words what you think > COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS means. It takes the input, and TRIES to process them to the answer corresponding to the mapping it is supposed to be computing. Yes, ALL programs the meet the very basic definition of a decider (giving an answer for all possible input) computes SOME mapping of the input ot the output (which provides the count of the number of possible mappings that are computable). So H is some sort of decider, But to be a decider for a specific function, it needs to compute the mapping that matches that function. So, A Halt Decider, to be a HALT decider, needs to generate the exact same mapping as the Halting mathematical function, which is defined in terms of the behavior of the machine represented by the input. This seems to be just totally beyond your understanding, that there are actual REQUIREMENTS that must be met for something to be "Correct". Note, the word *THE* in your phrase meens a specific simgular mapping, that is the mapping defined by the function it is named for. Your H computes *A* mapping, but not the Halting Function mapping. And the exact details of that mapping is a function of the decider you create to try to compute it, as H and H1 generate different answers for the D built on H (and for the D1 built on H1). Thus your "POOP" mapping is different for each H you want to ask about, so in one sense, isn't even a correct question to be asking. It isn't asking about the decider deciding on the behavior of the input correctly simulated by itself, but the decider needing to decider on the behavior of the input correctly simulated by a particular H that was choosen. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 22:58 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4dqq0$2353n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107040 |
On 6/12/2024 10:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 11:24 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 9:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am saying there is no mapping from the input TO THE QUESTION. >>>>>>>> H IS NOT EVEN BEING ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, you admit that you are lying about H being a Halt Decider. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No I admit that you are too stupid to understand what I am saying. >>>>> >>>>> How is it a H >>>>> >>>> >>>> I gave you the source-code. >>> >>> So? >>> >>> Last time I commented about somethihg from the source code you said >>> that didn't apply. >>> >>> It also, as you have admitted, has bugs in its trace routine, so it >>> can't produce a trace of the quality you seem to want. >>> >> >> I never said anything like that. > > You admitted that it didn't produce the "Correct Simulation" output that > it was supposed to produce. > It was never supposed to produce this. As I explain on page five of this other 2021 paper. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation > The output wasn't the simulation it did, but the execution trace of your > decider itself. > >> >>> Do you deny that with the H defined so that H(D,D) will return 0, as >>> it does in your source code that making main() call D(D) that that >>> D(D) will not return? >>> >>> You even posted a trace of that operation, but its trace has the same >>> error that all your traces do, so I don't want to call that "Correct" >>> any more, as that would be a LIE. >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Because Halt Deciders *ARE* being asked about the behavior of the >>>>>>> machine their input describes, in this case D(D). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This never has been precisely correct. That is a dumbed down >>>>>> version for people that do not really understand these things. >>>>> >>>>> Source for that claim? and not that it is just another of your >>>>> unverifiable false claims? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Actual comprehension is my source. That it is over-your-head >>>> does not make me incorrect. >>> >>> I other words, you ADMIT that it is just a "I made itup" up, but it >>> must be true" sort of statement, so doesn't actualuy have an accepted >>> truth-maker for it, so is just a LIE. >>> >>> That's par for the course. >>> >>> That you can't actually show it, shows you ARE incorrect for claiming >>> it. >>> >>>> >>>> How do you think that halt deciders figure out the question that >>>> they are being asked, do they look up the question on a textbook? >>> >>> They don't need to. There Programmer needs to figure that out. >>> >>> Programs don't "think", they "Compute", and do it per their >>> instuctions given to them. >>> >>> You just don't seem to understand the essential nature of Programs do >>> you. >>> >>>> >>>>> You have a big list of things you have claimed but NEVER were able >>>>> to show a proof, and thus effectively admitted that you made up >>>>> your claims, which means they can be considered to be LIE. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No it means that the reasoning behind them must be carefully assessed. >>> >>> But you can't give any actual "reasoning", only your own >>> unsubstantiated claims based on wrong defintions. >>> >> >> *COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS* >> Is currently totally over-your-head >> yet has a specific meaning using those terms >> according to their conventional meanings. >> >> Tell me in your own words what you think >> COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS means. > > > It takes the input, and TRIES to process them to the answer > corresponding to the mapping it is supposed to be computing. > > Yes, ALL programs the meet the very basic definition of a decider > (giving an answer for all possible input) computes SOME mapping of the > input ot the output (which provides the count of the number of possible > mappings that are computable). So H is some sort of decider, > > But to be a decider for a specific function, it needs to compute the > mapping that matches that function. So, A Halt Decider, to be a HALT > decider, needs to generate the exact same mapping as the Halting > mathematical function, which is defined in terms of the behavior of the > machine represented by the input. > > This seems to be just totally beyond your understanding, that there are > actual REQUIREMENTS that must be met for something to be "Correct". > > Note, the word *THE* in your phrase meens a specific simgular mapping, > that is the mapping defined by the function it is named for. > > Your H computes *A* mapping, but not the Halting Function mapping. And > the exact details of that mapping is a function of the decider you > create to try to compute it, as H and H1 generate different answers for > the D built on H (and for the D1 built on H1). Thus your "POOP" mapping > is different for each H you want to ask about, so in one sense, isn't > even a correct question to be asking. > > It isn't asking about the decider deciding on the behavior of the input > correctly simulated by itself, but the decider needing to decider on the > behavior of the input correctly simulated by a particular H that was > choosen. > > >> > Try and show the steps of the mapping that you expect in terms of D correctly simulated by H, line by line. Begin as machine address [00000cfc] then what and what and what that ends up with the behavior of D(D) _D() [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp [00000d1d](01) c3 ret Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] -- 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 | 2024-06-13 07:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4el9m$3rsd6$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107043 |
On 6/12/24 11:58 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 10:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 11:24 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 9:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 10:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I am saying there is no mapping from the input TO THE QUESTION. >>>>>>>>> H IS NOT EVEN BEING ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, you admit that you are lying about H being a Halt Decider. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No I admit that you are too stupid to understand what I am saying. >>>>>> >>>>>> How is it a H >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I gave you the source-code. >>>> >>>> So? >>>> >>>> Last time I commented about somethihg from the source code you said >>>> that didn't apply. >>>> >>>> It also, as you have admitted, has bugs in its trace routine, so it >>>> can't produce a trace of the quality you seem to want. >>>> >>> >>> I never said anything like that. >> >> You admitted that it didn't produce the "Correct Simulation" output >> that it was supposed to produce. >> > > It was never supposed to produce this. > As I explain on page five of this other 2021 paper. > > https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351947980_Halting_problem_undecidability_and_infinitely_nested_simulation But acting as a "pure simulator until ..." is NOT the same as acting as a pure simulator. And thus the "transform" is invalid, as shown by the fact that P(P) halts even though H(P,P) uses its logic to say that it doesn't. Thus, your "logic" introduces a FALSE premise into its logic, and thus its conclusion is INVALID. Can you show an ACTUAL accepted statement that says you are allowed to do that transform, or is this just another of your "it seems right, so I will assume it to be right" statements that just makes your logic wrong. Your logic is just subject to the power of the paradox. > >> The output wasn't the simulation it did, but the execution trace of >> your decider itself. >> >>> >>>> Do you deny that with the H defined so that H(D,D) will return 0, as >>>> it does in your source code that making main() call D(D) that that >>>> D(D) will not return? >>>> >>>> You even posted a trace of that operation, but its trace has the >>>> same error that all your traces do, so I don't want to call that >>>> "Correct" any more, as that would be a LIE. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because Halt Deciders *ARE* being asked about the behavior of >>>>>>>> the machine their input describes, in this case D(D). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This never has been precisely correct. That is a dumbed down >>>>>>> version for people that do not really understand these things. >>>>>> >>>>>> Source for that claim? and not that it is just another of your >>>>>> unverifiable false claims? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Actual comprehension is my source. That it is over-your-head >>>>> does not make me incorrect. >>>> >>>> I other words, you ADMIT that it is just a "I made itup" up, but it >>>> must be true" sort of statement, so doesn't actualuy have an >>>> accepted truth-maker for it, so is just a LIE. >>>> >>>> That's par for the course. >>>> >>>> That you can't actually show it, shows you ARE incorrect for >>>> claiming it. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> How do you think that halt deciders figure out the question that >>>>> they are being asked, do they look up the question on a textbook? >>>> >>>> They don't need to. There Programmer needs to figure that out. >>>> >>>> Programs don't "think", they "Compute", and do it per their >>>> instuctions given to them. >>>> >>>> You just don't seem to understand the essential nature of Programs >>>> do you. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> You have a big list of things you have claimed but NEVER were able >>>>>> to show a proof, and thus effectively admitted that you made up >>>>>> your claims, which means they can be considered to be LIE. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No it means that the reasoning behind them must be carefully assessed. >>>> >>>> But you can't give any actual "reasoning", only your own >>>> unsubstantiated claims based on wrong defintions. >>>> >>> >>> *COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS* >>> Is currently totally over-your-head >>> yet has a specific meaning using those terms >>> according to their conventional meanings. >>> >>> Tell me in your own words what you think >>> COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS means. >> >> >> It takes the input, and TRIES to process them to the answer >> corresponding to the mapping it is supposed to be computing. >> >> Yes, ALL programs the meet the very basic definition of a decider >> (giving an answer for all possible input) computes SOME mapping of the >> input ot the output (which provides the count of the number of >> possible mappings that are computable). So H is some sort of decider, >> >> But to be a decider for a specific function, it needs to compute the >> mapping that matches that function. So, A Halt Decider, to be a HALT >> decider, needs to generate the exact same mapping as the Halting >> mathematical function, which is defined in terms of the behavior of >> the machine represented by the input. >> >> This seems to be just totally beyond your understanding, that there >> are actual REQUIREMENTS that must be met for something to be "Correct". >> >> Note, the word *THE* in your phrase meens a specific simgular mapping, >> that is the mapping defined by the function it is named for. >> >> Your H computes *A* mapping, but not the Halting Function mapping. And >> the exact details of that mapping is a function of the decider you >> create to try to compute it, as H and H1 generate different answers >> for the D built on H (and for the D1 built on H1). Thus your "POOP" >> mapping is different for each H you want to ask about, so in one >> sense, isn't even a correct question to be asking. >> >> It isn't asking about the decider deciding on the behavior of the >> input correctly simulated by itself, but the decider needing to >> decider on the behavior of the input correctly simulated by a >> particular H that was choosen. >> >> >>> >> > > Try and show the steps of the mapping that you expect in > terms of D correctly simulated by H, line by line. But I don't claim a mapping of D correctly simulated by H, as that is a INVALID criteria, as I explained. Since you call H a "Halt Decider", its criteria is, and can only be, the behavior of the directly executed D(D), or something that EXACTLY agrees with that behavior, So, all you are doing is ADMITTING that you are LYING about the criteria of H, showing you have been deceptivel yLYING for the past years. It shows that you do NOT beleive that the actual "meaning of the words" is what establishes truth, as you don't think the meaning of the words actually matter. (that or truth doesn't matter). > > Begin as machine address [00000cfc] then what and what and what > that ends up with the behavior of D(D) The behavior of D(D) will BE (at a high level description) we go through the first instructions until we get to the call H, which will be passed the paramaters of the addresss of D twice. That will then go through the code of H, where it will simulate its version of D(D), and by your description, WILL reach a point where it decides to abort its simulation and return the value of 0, indicating its prediction on the behavior of the execution of D(D) is to be non-halting (but due to fault logic). The execution of D then skips over the infinite loop and Halt. The "Correct (but partial) Simulation by H" will when the code for the simulated H reaches the point that it sees the call to H instruction in its simulated path. So, that simulation exactly matched the behavior of the code to that point, but ignores that the correct simulation OF THIS CODE, will continue on and make the exact same decision when the code IT is simulating reaches that point too. The issue being that THIS INPUT doesn't change when we apply the full UTM like simulation to THIS INPUT (and not regenerate an input from the template). The problem you have is you can not do what you want to do with just the template being the input, as you can't simulate it far enough to make you claim, as templates don't actually have unifited behavior to answer about, and the problem was ALWAYS about a specific input, which needs to be a FULL program, not just a template of one. > > _D() > [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp > [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D > [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D > [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H > [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 > [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax > [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 > [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax > [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c > [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 > [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp > [00000d1d](01) c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] > >
[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