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 17 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-14 07:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- simulating vs. deciding |
| Message-ID | <v4hbqo$2sdqr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107079 |
On 6/13/2024 12:38 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 12:06:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/13/2024 11:53 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:58:27 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 6/13/2024 3:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:12:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> 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 :
>
>>>>>> *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*
>>>>> Any UTM/simulator does it. But H must halt, so it's wrong on non-
>>>>> terminating inputs.
>>> A decider must halt. A simulator must have the same behaviour and can't
>>> abort a nonterminating program. A halting decider is impossible.
>>>
>> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
>> {
>> Infinite_Recursion(N);
>> }
>>
>> In other words you are saying that a simulating termination analyzer
>> that correctly determines that the above Infinite_Recursion cannot
>> possibly halt is WRONG BY DEFINITION?
> Yes, because to give that result it must halt.
>
>> *THESE PEOPLE WOULD DISAGREE*
>> AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs
> This is not a simulator.
>
Yes it does you ignorant troll.
Then AProVE symbolically executes the LLVM program
--
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 22:30 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4b17k$3nf9n$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106948 |
On 6/11/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/11/2024 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/11/24 1:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/11/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/11/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, I guess you are admitting that you claim it as a verified >>>>>>>> fact is just a LIE. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same >>>>>>>>> behavior as the directly executed D(D) is for the instructions >>>>>>>>> of D to be incorrectly simulated by H (details provided below). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, I guess you are admitting that this means that "D correctly >>>>>>>> simulated by H" is NOT a possible equivalent statement for the >>>>>>>> behavior of the direct execution of the input as required by the >>>>>>>> Halting Problem, so you admit you have been LYING every time you >>>>>>>> imply that it is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In order for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as the >>>>>>>>> directly executed D(D) H must ignore the instruction at machine >>>>>>>>> address [00000d07]. *That is an incorrect simulation of D* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, H can, and must, simulate the call instruction correctly. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Ah so you finally admit that the directly executed D(D) that* >>>>>>> *cannot possibly reach this instruction *is not* the behavior* >>>>>>> *of D correctly simulated by H that reaches this instruction* >>>>>>> *and simulates H simulating H* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> No, I admit that THIS H didn't do it, >>>>> >>>>> *This H does do it* >>>>> D is correctly simulated by H and H simulates itself simulating D >>>>> as the above line of code requires. >>>>> >>>>> The directly executed D(D) can't possibly reach that line of code >>>>> thus proving that it has different behavior than D correctly >>>>> simulated by H. >>>>> >>>> >>>> WHy do you say the directly executed D(D) Can't reach its return >>>> statement? >>>> >>> >>> That is my second big mistake that I am aware of in the last year. >>> >>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >> >> WRONG. >> >> *YOU* have verified that the directly executed D(D) will reach its >> return statement. > > 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. IMPOSSIBLE. Just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means. A Halt-Decider must BY DEFINITION compute the Halt function, which *IS* about the behavior of the directly executed D(D). So, if that is definitionally out of bounds, that just PROVES that there can't be a Halt Decider. Of course, since it is shown that we CAN built "Halt-Deciders" for large classes of inputs, it is obviously a fact that the direct execution of the input CAN be the "business" of a decider. YOu are just proving your ignorance of what you talk about, and thus NOTHING you talk about should be beleived. That is the problem with lying so much, even if you do happen to discover something, no one will care, because it looks like just another of your lies. Pity, some of your ideas had some interesting thoughts, but considering what you have shown of your intuition, they probably don't end up working anyway. > > We were going to get to that point after you quit your > THREE YEARS OF STRAW-MAN DECEPTION. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-11 22:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4b48k$1f89t$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106961 |
On 6/11/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/11/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/11/2024 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/11/24 1:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/11/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, I guess you are admitting that you claim it as a verified >>>>>>>>> fact is just a LIE. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same >>>>>>>>>> behavior as the directly executed D(D) is for the instructions >>>>>>>>>> of D to be incorrectly simulated by H (details provided below). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, I guess you are admitting that this means that "D correctly >>>>>>>>> simulated by H" is NOT a possible equivalent statement for the >>>>>>>>> behavior of the direct execution of the input as required by >>>>>>>>> the Halting Problem, so you admit you have been LYING every >>>>>>>>> time you imply that it is. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> In order for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as the >>>>>>>>>> directly executed D(D) H must ignore the instruction at machine >>>>>>>>>> address [00000d07]. *That is an incorrect simulation of D* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, H can, and must, simulate the call instruction correctly. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Ah so you finally admit that the directly executed D(D) that* >>>>>>>> *cannot possibly reach this instruction *is not* the behavior* >>>>>>>> *of D correctly simulated by H that reaches this instruction* >>>>>>>> *and simulates H simulating H* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, I admit that THIS H didn't do it, >>>>>> >>>>>> *This H does do it* >>>>>> D is correctly simulated by H and H simulates itself simulating D >>>>>> as the above line of code requires. >>>>>> >>>>>> The directly executed D(D) can't possibly reach that line of code >>>>>> thus proving that it has different behavior than D correctly >>>>>> simulated by H. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> WHy do you say the directly executed D(D) Can't reach its return >>>>> statement? >>>>> >>>> >>>> That is my second big mistake that I am aware of in the last year. >>>> >>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>> >>> WRONG. >>> >>> *YOU* have verified that the directly executed D(D) will reach its >>> return statement. >> >> 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. > > IMPOSSIBLE. > > Just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. > > The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means. There are no finite string transformation rules from the input to H(D,D) to 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 07:33 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4c12t$3oop0$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106969 |
On 6/11/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/11/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/11/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/11/2024 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/11/24 1:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, I guess you are admitting that you claim it as a verified >>>>>>>>>> fact is just a LIE. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same >>>>>>>>>>> behavior as the directly executed D(D) is for the instructions >>>>>>>>>>> of D to be incorrectly simulated by H (details provided below). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> So, I guess you are admitting that this means that "D >>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H" is NOT a possible equivalent >>>>>>>>>> statement for the behavior of the direct execution of the >>>>>>>>>> input as required by the Halting Problem, so you admit you >>>>>>>>>> have been LYING every time you imply that it is. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> In order for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as the >>>>>>>>>>> directly executed D(D) H must ignore the instruction at machine >>>>>>>>>>> address [00000d07]. *That is an incorrect simulation of D* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, H can, and must, simulate the call instruction correctly. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Ah so you finally admit that the directly executed D(D) that* >>>>>>>>> *cannot possibly reach this instruction *is not* the behavior* >>>>>>>>> *of D correctly simulated by H that reaches this instruction* >>>>>>>>> *and simulates H simulating H* >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, I admit that THIS H didn't do it, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *This H does do it* >>>>>>> D is correctly simulated by H and H simulates itself simulating D >>>>>>> as the above line of code requires. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The directly executed D(D) can't possibly reach that line of code >>>>>>> thus proving that it has different behavior than D correctly >>>>>>> simulated by H. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> WHy do you say the directly executed D(D) Can't reach its return >>>>>> statement? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That is my second big mistake that I am aware of in the last year. >>>>> >>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>> >>>> WRONG. >>>> >>>> *YOU* have verified that the directly executed D(D) will reach its >>>> return statement. >>> >>> 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. >> >> IMPOSSIBLE. >> >> Just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. >> >> The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means. > > There are no finite string transformation rules > from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D). > As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do it, that is a UTM. There may not be a fintie string-transformation, i.e. an algorithm that does it in finite time, but there is no requirement for that on functions we can ask a decider to compute. That is needed to actually be able to compute it, and make the function computable, but there is no "rule" against asking an impossible problem. The answer to "Can you build a decider that does ...." can be NO, as it is with a Halt Decider. You are just showing a fundamental misunderstanding of the basic concepts of the field you are claiming to be making important discoveries in.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 11:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4ck2c$1o4b4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #106980 |
On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/11/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/11/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/11/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/11/2024 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/24 1:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, I guess you are admitting that you claim it as a verified >>>>>>>>>>> fact is just a LIE. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same >>>>>>>>>>>> behavior as the directly executed D(D) is for the instructions >>>>>>>>>>>> of D to be incorrectly simulated by H (details provided below). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So, I guess you are admitting that this means that "D >>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H" is NOT a possible equivalent >>>>>>>>>>> statement for the behavior of the direct execution of the >>>>>>>>>>> input as required by the Halting Problem, so you admit you >>>>>>>>>>> have been LYING every time you imply that it is. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In order for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as the >>>>>>>>>>>> directly executed D(D) H must ignore the instruction at machine >>>>>>>>>>>> address [00000d07]. *That is an incorrect simulation of D* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, H can, and must, simulate the call instruction correctly. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Ah so you finally admit that the directly executed D(D) that* >>>>>>>>>> *cannot possibly reach this instruction *is not* the behavior* >>>>>>>>>> *of D correctly simulated by H that reaches this instruction* >>>>>>>>>> *and simulates H simulating H* >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No, I admit that THIS H didn't do it, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *This H does do it* >>>>>>>> D is correctly simulated by H and H simulates itself simulating D >>>>>>>> as the above line of code requires. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The directly executed D(D) can't possibly reach that line of code >>>>>>>> thus proving that it has different behavior than D correctly >>>>>>>> simulated by H. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WHy do you say the directly executed D(D) Can't reach its return >>>>>>> statement? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> That is my second big mistake that I am aware of in the last year. >>>>>> >>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>> >>>>> WRONG. >>>>> >>>>> *YOU* have verified that the directly executed D(D) will reach its >>>>> return statement. >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> IMPOSSIBLE. >>> >>> Just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. >>> >>> The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means. >> >> There are no finite string transformation rules >> from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D). >> > > As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do it, > that is a UTM. > On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning. *Steps 1-7 are simulated then THE SIMULATED D CALLS THE SIMULATED H* *Steps 1-7 are simulated then THE SIMULATED D CALLS THE SIMULATED H* *Steps 1-7 are simulated then THE SIMULATED D CALLS THE SIMULATED H* *What are the exact next steps of D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H* *What are the exact next steps of D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H* *What are the exact next steps of D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H* THAT REACH THE SIMULATED "ret" INSTRUCTION? THAT REACH THE SIMULATED "ret" INSTRUCTION? THAT REACH THE SIMULATED "ret" INSTRUCTION? _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 19:03 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4d9gt$3qbnc$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #106991 |
On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/11/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/11/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/11/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/2024 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/24 1:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I guess you are admitting that you claim it as a >>>>>>>>>>>> verified fact is just a LIE. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same >>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior as the directly executed D(D) is for the instructions >>>>>>>>>>>>> of D to be incorrectly simulated by H (details provided >>>>>>>>>>>>> below). >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, I guess you are admitting that this means that "D >>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H" is NOT a possible equivalent >>>>>>>>>>>> statement for the behavior of the direct execution of the >>>>>>>>>>>> input as required by the Halting Problem, so you admit you >>>>>>>>>>>> have been LYING every time you imply that it is. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In order for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as the >>>>>>>>>>>>> directly executed D(D) H must ignore the instruction at >>>>>>>>>>>>> machine >>>>>>>>>>>>> address [00000d07]. *That is an incorrect simulation of D* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, H can, and must, simulate the call instruction correctly. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Ah so you finally admit that the directly executed D(D) that* >>>>>>>>>>> *cannot possibly reach this instruction *is not* the behavior* >>>>>>>>>>> *of D correctly simulated by H that reaches this instruction* >>>>>>>>>>> *and simulates H simulating H* >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> No, I admit that THIS H didn't do it, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *This H does do it* >>>>>>>>> D is correctly simulated by H and H simulates itself simulating D >>>>>>>>> as the above line of code requires. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The directly executed D(D) can't possibly reach that line of code >>>>>>>>> thus proving that it has different behavior than D correctly >>>>>>>>> simulated by H. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WHy do you say the directly executed D(D) Can't reach its return >>>>>>>> statement? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That is my second big mistake that I am aware of in the last year. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>> >>>>>> WRONG. >>>>>> >>>>>> *YOU* have verified that the directly executed D(D) will reach its >>>>>> return statement. >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> IMPOSSIBLE. >>>> >>>> Just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. >>>> >>>> The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means. >>> >>> There are no finite string transformation rules >>> from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D). >>> >> >> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do it, >> that is a UTM. >> > > On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: > https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ > > Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated > by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have > is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning. Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM. > > *Steps 1-7 are simulated then THE SIMULATED D CALLS THE SIMULATED H* > *Steps 1-7 are simulated then THE SIMULATED D CALLS THE SIMULATED H* > *Steps 1-7 are simulated then THE SIMULATED D CALLS THE SIMULATED H* And since H doesn't then simulate that, it is just an incorrect simulation > > *What are the exact next steps of D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H* > *What are the exact next steps of D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H* > *What are the exact next steps of D CORRECTLY SIMULATED BY H* > The call to H, followed by the assembly instructions of H. > THAT REACH THE SIMULATED "ret" INSTRUCTION? > THAT REACH THE SIMULATED "ret" INSTRUCTION? > THAT REACH THE SIMULATED "ret" INSTRUCTION? who says the simualation, BY H, can do that? It is the simulation by a UTM that can. Since you don't give the instructions of H, and I won't fix your program to generate that (without payment), I won't provide that detail list to you, but since it has been shown that D(D) WILL halt since H(D,D) returns 0, that is sufficient. > > _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 18:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4daoq$1sioe$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107000 |
On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/11/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/11/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/2024 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/24 1:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE >>>>>>>>>>>>>> YEARS* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE >>>>>>>>>>>>>> YEARS* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE >>>>>>>>>>>>>> YEARS* >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I guess you are admitting that you claim it as a >>>>>>>>>>>>> verified fact is just a LIE. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior as the directly executed D(D) is for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions >>>>>>>>>>>>>> of D to be incorrectly simulated by H (details provided >>>>>>>>>>>>>> below). >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I guess you are admitting that this means that "D >>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H" is NOT a possible equivalent >>>>>>>>>>>>> statement for the behavior of the direct execution of the >>>>>>>>>>>>> input as required by the Halting Problem, so you admit you >>>>>>>>>>>>> have been LYING every time you imply that it is. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order for D simulated by H to have the same behavior as >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly executed D(D) H must ignore the instruction at >>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>> address [00000d07]. *That is an incorrect simulation of D* >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No, H can, and must, simulate the call instruction correctly. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Ah so you finally admit that the directly executed D(D) that* >>>>>>>>>>>> *cannot possibly reach this instruction *is not* the behavior* >>>>>>>>>>>> *of D correctly simulated by H that reaches this instruction* >>>>>>>>>>>> *and simulates H simulating H* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> No, I admit that THIS H didn't do it, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *This H does do it* >>>>>>>>>> D is correctly simulated by H and H simulates itself simulating D >>>>>>>>>> as the above line of code requires. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The directly executed D(D) can't possibly reach that line of code >>>>>>>>>> thus proving that it has different behavior than D correctly >>>>>>>>>> simulated by H. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> WHy do you say the directly executed D(D) Can't reach its >>>>>>>>> return statement? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is my second big mistake that I am aware of in the last year. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WRONG. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *YOU* have verified that the directly executed D(D) will reach >>>>>>> its return statement. >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> IMPOSSIBLE. >>>>> >>>>> Just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>> >>>>> The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means. >>>> >>>> There are no finite string transformation rules >>>> from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D). >>>> >>> >>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do it, >>> that is a UTM. >>> >> >> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >> >> Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated >> by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have >> is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning. > > Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the behavior > of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM. > H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior that it specifies using finite string transformation rules. *H DOES NOT simply guess what you think it should do and do that* *H DOES NOT simply guess what you think it should do and do that* *H DOES NOT simply guess what you think it should do and do 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] -- 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 19:45 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dbun$3qbnc$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107002 |
On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/11/24 11:21 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/24 7:23 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 5:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 1:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 6:47 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 10:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/24 10:06 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/10/2024 6:16 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/9/24 11:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YEARS* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YEARS* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> YEARS* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I guess you are admitting that you claim it as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> verified fact is just a LIE. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY for D simulated by H to have the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior as the directly executed D(D) is for the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of D to be incorrectly simulated by H (details provided >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> below). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, I guess you are admitting that this means that "D >>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly simulated by H" is NOT a possible equivalent >>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement for the behavior of the direct execution of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> input as required by the Halting Problem, so you admit you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> have been LYING every time you imply that it is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In order for D simulated by H to have the same behavior >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> directly executed D(D) H must ignore the instruction at >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> machine >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> address [00000d07]. *That is an incorrect simulation of D* >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, H can, and must, simulate the call instruction correctly. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *Ah so you finally admit that the directly executed D(D) that* >>>>>>>>>>>>> *cannot possibly reach this instruction *is not* the behavior* >>>>>>>>>>>>> *of D correctly simulated by H that reaches this instruction* >>>>>>>>>>>>> *and simulates H simulating H* >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> No, I admit that THIS H didn't do it, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *This H does do it* >>>>>>>>>>> D is correctly simulated by H and H simulates itself >>>>>>>>>>> simulating D >>>>>>>>>>> as the above line of code requires. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The directly executed D(D) can't possibly reach that line of >>>>>>>>>>> code >>>>>>>>>>> thus proving that it has different behavior than D correctly >>>>>>>>>>> simulated by H. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> WHy do you say the directly executed D(D) Can't reach its >>>>>>>>>> return statement? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is my second big mistake that I am aware of in the last year. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>>> *No one has verified the actual facts of this for THREE YEARS* >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> WRONG. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *YOU* have verified that the directly executed D(D) will reach >>>>>>>> its return statement. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> IMPOSSIBLE. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just shows that you don't understand what you are talking about. >>>>>> >>>>>> The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means. >>>>> >>>>> There are no finite string transformation rules >>>>> from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D). >>>>> >>>> >>>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do >>>> it, that is a UTM. >>>> >>> >>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>> >>> Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated >>> by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have >>> is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning. >> >> Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the behavior >> of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM. >> > > H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input > transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior > that it specifies using finite string transformation rules. Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is answer the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And that Question is about the behavior of the direct execution of the machine represented by its input. That behavior is FULLY defined by the input, just not necessarily something that H can determine in a finite number of steps. Remember, Comptation Theory is about the question of *IF* such a requirement *IS* computable or not. So, not being computable, and thus there not being a method to get the answer in a finite number of steps is a perfectly acceptable results. > > *H DOES NOT simply guess what you think it should do and do that* > *H DOES NOT simply guess what you think it should do and do that* > *H DOES NOT simply guess what you think it should do and do that* Rigth, to be CORRECT, it must answer per the criteria DEFINED for it. If it can't actually compute that, then its only remaining option is to guess an possibly be wrong, which is what yours does. > > _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 19:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4df07$1te0b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107004 |
On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> >>>>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do >>>>> it, that is a UTM. >>>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>> >>>> Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated >>>> by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have >>>> is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning. >>> >>> Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the >>> behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM. >>> >> >> H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input >> transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior >> that it specifies using finite string transformation rules. > > Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is answer > the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And that Question > is about the behavior of the direct execution of the machine represented > by its input. > *H is not even being asked that question* H is being asked about the behavior that its finite string inputs maps to via a set of finite string transformation rules. H is not answering the question that is in your head. H is answering the question that it is being asked. -- 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 20:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dfsu$3qbnd$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107008 |
On 6/12/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do >>>>>> it, that is a UTM. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>> >>>>> Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated >>>>> by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have >>>>> is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning. >>>> >>>> Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the >>>> behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM. >>>> >>> >>> H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input >>> transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior >>> that it specifies using finite string transformation rules. >> >> Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is answer >> the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And that Question >> is about the behavior of the direct execution of the machine >> represented by its input. >> > > *H is not even being asked that question* So, H ian't a Halt Decider? Because the question being asked of *ALL* halt deciders, is "Does the machine/input described by its input halt when it is run?" > H is being asked about the behavior that its finite string > inputs maps to via a set of finite string transformation rules. Nope, Where do you get that from? You are confusing capability with requirements, likely because you don't understand requirements and how they actually define what is correct. > > H is not answering the question that is in your head. > H is answering the question that it is being asked. > So, you are just admitting that you have been lying all this time about working on the halting problem. There goes you claim to have never lied.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 20:27 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dhuk$1tsdf$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107011 |
On 6/12/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do >>>>>>> it, that is a UTM. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>>> >>>>>> Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated >>>>>> by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have >>>>>> is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning. >>>>> >>>>> Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the >>>>> behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM. >>>>> >>>> >>>> H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input >>>> transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior >>>> that it specifies using finite string transformation rules. >>> >>> Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is >>> answer the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And that >>> Question is about the behavior of the direct execution of the machine >>> represented by its input. >>> >> >> *H is not even being asked that question* > > So, H ian't a Halt Decider? > > Because the question being asked of *ALL* halt deciders, is "Does the > machine/input described by its input halt when it is run?" > THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified by this finite string input. When it does this it does not end up with the behavior of the directly executed D(D). >> H is being asked about the behavior that its finite string >> inputs maps to via a set of finite string transformation rules. > > Nope, Where do you get that from? > H computes the mapping. H does not read your mind to see what you expect. When H(D,D) computes the mapping FROM ITS FINITE STRING INPUT IT CANNOT POSSIBLY GET TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED D(D) > You are confusing capability with requirements, likely because you don't > understand requirements and how they actually define what is correct. > >> >> H is not answering the question that is in your head. >> H is answering the question that it is being asked. >> > > So, you are just admitting that you have been lying all this time about > working on the halting problem. > > There goes you claim to have never lied. SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! SHOW ME THE MAPPING ! -- 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 21:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4diet$3qbnc$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107015 |
On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/12/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/12/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that
>>>>>>>> do it, that is a UTM.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated
>>>>>>> by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have
>>>>>>> is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the
>>>>>> behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input
>>>>> transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior
>>>>> that it specifies using finite string transformation rules.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is
>>>> answer the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And that
>>>> Question is about the behavior of the direct execution of the
>>>> machine represented by its input.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *H is not even being asked that question*
>>
>> So, H ian't a Halt Decider?
>>
>> Because the question being asked of *ALL* halt deciders, is "Does the
>> machine/input described by its input halt when it is run?"
>>
>
> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED.
> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED.
How do you say that?
Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"?
>
> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing
> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified
> by this finite string input.
So, Definitions don't mean anything?
I guess they don't to LIARS.
And your whole idea that truth comes out of the meaning of the words is
just a LIE to you.
>
> When it does this it does not end up with the behavior
> of the directly executed D(D).
Which just means it fails to do what it must to be a Halt decider.
>
>>> H is being asked about the behavior that its finite string
>>> inputs maps to via a set of finite string transformation rules.
>>
>> Nope, Where do you get that from?
>>
>
> H computes the mapping.
> H does not read your mind to see what you expect.
No, but the programmer who claims that H is a Halt decider was
responsible for knowing the defintion of the problem before saying he
had a solution.
> When H(D,D) computes the mapping FROM ITS FINITE STRING INPUT
> IT CANNOT POSSIBLY GET TO THE BEHAVIOR OF THE DIRECTLY EXECUTED D(D)
So, it just shows it NEVER WAS a Halt decider, and its creator (you) has
just been LYING about what it was supposed to be.
>
>> You are confusing capability with requirements, likely because you
>> don't understand requirements and how they actually define what is
>> correct.
>>
>>>
>>> H is not answering the question that is in your head.
>>> H is answering the question that it is being asked.
>>>
>>
>> So, you are just admitting that you have been lying all this time
>> about working on the halting problem.
>>
>> There goes you claim to have never lied.
>
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
Halt(M, d) -> True if M(d) will Halt
-> False if M(d) will never Halt.
For ALL Turing Machines M and inputs d.
That is the DEFINITION, that you have knows about since you started, as
it is clearly in the definition of the problem.
If you neglected it, it just shows you don't understand the meaning of
requirements.
Your claim that a "Halt Decider" can "correct" compute ANY other mapping
just shows you to be a pathological liar
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
> SHOW ME THE MAPPING !
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 20:50 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dj9i$1tsdf$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107016 |
On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that >>>>>>>>> do it, that is a UTM. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated >>>>>>>> by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have >>>>>>>> is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the >>>>>>> behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input >>>>>> transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior >>>>>> that it specifies using finite string transformation rules. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is >>>>> answer the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And >>>>> that Question is about the behavior of the direct execution of the >>>>> machine represented by its input. >>>>> >>>> >>>> *H is not even being asked that question* >>> >>> So, H ian't a Halt Decider? >>> >>> Because the question being asked of *ALL* halt deciders, is "Does the >>> machine/input described by its input halt when it is run?" >>> >> >> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. > > How do you say that? > > Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? > >> >> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified >> by this finite string input. > > So, Definitions don't mean anything? > Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. > I guess they don't to LIARS. > > And your whole idea that truth comes out of the meaning of the words is > just a LIE to you. > >> >> When it does this it does not end up with the behavior >> of the directly executed D(D). > > Which just means it fails to do what it must to be a Halt decider. > H must compute question that it is being asked. Did not know that H does not understand English? The question that H computes IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. How much more do I have to dumb this down for an MIT grad? EE is not a directly relevant field so maybe quite a bit. -- 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 22:16 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dkp0$3qbnd$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107019 |
On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 7:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 8:37 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:45 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 7:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:03 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that >>>>>>>>>> do it, that is a UTM. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/29/2021 2:26 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.theory/c/dTvIY5NX6b4/m/cHR2ZPgPBAAJ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Unless you show every single step of D correctly simulated >>>>>>>>> by H that reaches the simulated "ret" of D all you have >>>>>>>>> is bluster utterly bereft of any supporting reasoning. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why, because the claim isn't about the simulate by H, but the >>>>>>>> behavior of the difectly executed D(D), or its simulation by a UTM. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> H(D,D) must compute the mapping from its finite string input >>>>>>> transforming the finite string of its input into the behavior >>>>>>> that it specifies using finite string transformation rules. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, it only CAN do what it can compute, but what it MUST do is >>>>>> answer the question posed to it, which might be impossible. And >>>>>> that Question is about the behavior of the direct execution of the >>>>>> machine represented by its input. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *H is not even being asked that question* >>>> >>>> So, H ian't a Halt Decider? >>>> >>>> Because the question being asked of *ALL* halt deciders, is "Does >>>> the machine/input described by its input halt when it is run?" >>>> >>> >>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >> >> How do you say that? >> >> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? >> >>> >>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified >>> by this finite string input. >> >> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >> > > Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. But the formal question can be translated into English. And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a requirements doecument. "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they just do what they are programmed to do. The PROGRMMER making it needs to understand the question in which ever form it is presented. > >> I guess they don't to LIARS. >> >> And your whole idea that truth comes out of the meaning of the words >> is just a LIE to you. >> >>> >>> When it does this it does not end up with the behavior >>> of the directly executed D(D). >> >> Which just means it fails to do what it must to be a Halt decider. >> > > H must compute question that it is being asked. > Did not know that H does not understand English? So, I guess you "Meaning of the words" arguement is just thrown out the door. So, since YOU are the programmer of H, I guess you are claiming it unfair to ask YOU to understand the Englis language version of the quesitn. > > The question that H computes IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). > IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. Then you are admitting that you H just fails to meet ANY version of the actual requirements of a Halt Decider, and that YOU are just admitting to being a LIAR. There goes you claim to have never lied. You just admitted to a doozy. > > How much more do I have to dumb this down for an MIT grad? > EE is not a directly relevant field so maybe quite a bit. > Except you don't understand that Professor Sipser is from that exact same department as which I studied in. The department name is Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and I did spend time in the CS part of the program. I suspect I know more about it than you, after all, I can write real Turing Machines to handle moderate problems.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 21:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dlac$225kb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107025 |
On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >>> >>> How do you say that? >>> >>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? >>> >>>> >>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified >>>> by this finite string input. >>> >>> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >>> >> >> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. > > But the formal question can be translated into English. > > And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a requirements > doecument. > > "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they just do > what they are programmed to do. H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated by H. No one ever tells it anything different than this. > The PROGRMMER making it needs to > understand the question in which ever form it is presented. > >> >>> I guess they don't to LIARS. >>> >>> And your whole idea that truth comes out of the meaning of the words >>> is just a LIE to you. >>> >>>> >>>> When it does this it does not end up with the behavior >>>> of the directly executed D(D). >>> >>> Which just means it fails to do what it must to be a Halt decider. >>> >> >> H must compute question that it is being asked. >> Did not know that H does not understand English? > > So, I guess you "Meaning of the words" arguement is just thrown out the > door. > > So, since YOU are the programmer of H, I guess you are claiming it > unfair to ask YOU to understand the Englis language version of the quesitn. > > >> >> The question that H computes IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). >> IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. > > Then you are admitting that you H just fails to meet ANY version of the > actual requirements of a Halt Decider, and that YOU are just admitting > to being a LIAR. > > There goes you claim to have never lied. You just admitted to a doozy. > No the problem has always been that you are just too freaking stupid. That is my canned reply every time you call me a liar. > >> >> How much more do I have to dumb this down for an MIT grad? >> EE is not a directly relevant field so maybe quite a bit. >> > > Except you don't understand that Professor Sipser is from that exact > same department as which I studied in. The department name is Electrical > Engineering and Computer Science, and I did spend time in the CS part of > the program. > > I suspect I know more about it than you, after all, I can write real > Turing Machines to handle moderate problems. -- 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 22:37 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dm13$3qbnc$10@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107028 |
On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >>>> >>>> How do you say that? >>>> >>>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? >>>> >>>>> >>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >>>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified >>>>> by this finite string input. >>>> >>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >>>> >>> >>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. >> >> But the formal question can be translated into English. >> >> And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a requirements >> doecument. >> >> "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they just do >> what they are programmed to do. > > H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated by H. > No one ever tells it anything different than this. H doesn't need to "know" what it is doing. It PROGRAMMER does. If the programmer is too stupid to understand the requirements, he never should have claimed his program was a Halt Decider. You keep on making that sort of mistake, confusing deterministic machines with Willful beings. I guess you are just proving that you are too stupid to know what you were supposed to do, and have admitted that you have wasted 20 years working on a problem you didn't understand. > >> The PROGRMMER making it needs to understand the question in which ever >> form it is presented. >> >>> >>>> I guess they don't to LIARS. >>>> >>>> And your whole idea that truth comes out of the meaning of the words >>>> is just a LIE to you. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> When it does this it does not end up with the behavior >>>>> of the directly executed D(D). >>>> >>>> Which just means it fails to do what it must to be a Halt decider. >>>> >>> >>> H must compute question that it is being asked. >>> Did not know that H does not understand English? >> >> So, I guess you "Meaning of the words" arguement is just thrown out >> the door. >> >> So, since YOU are the programmer of H, I guess you are claiming it >> unfair to ask YOU to understand the Englis language version of the >> quesitn. >> >> >>> >>> The question that H computes IS NOT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). >>> IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW MUCH IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. >> >> Then you are admitting that you H just fails to meet ANY version of >> the actual requirements of a Halt Decider, and that YOU are just >> admitting to being a LIAR. >> >> There goes you claim to have never lied. You just admitted to a doozy. >> > > No the problem has always been that you are just too freaking stupid. > That is my canned reply every time you call me a liar. > Which is just another LIE of yours. Your problem is you have lost the concept of truth, because you have lived a life filled with lies. That is why I call you a PATHOLOGICAL liar. You LIE, because you no longer can understand the difference between truth and falsehood. >> >>> >>> How much more do I have to dumb this down for an MIT grad? >>> EE is not a directly relevant field so maybe quite a bit. >>> >> >> Except you don't understand that Professor Sipser is from that exact >> same department as which I studied in. The department name is >> Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and I did spend time in >> the CS part of the program. >> >> I suspect I know more about it than you, after all, I can write real >> Turing Machines to handle moderate problems. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 21:48 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dmlu$22cmj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107030 |
On 6/12/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >>>>> >>>>> How do you say that? >>>>> >>>>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >>>>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified >>>>>> by this finite string input. >>>>> >>>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. >>> >>> But the formal question can be translated into English. >>> >>> And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a >>> requirements doecument. >>> >>> "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they just do >>> what they are programmed to do. >> >> H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated by H. >> No one ever tells it anything different than this. > > H doesn't need to "know" what it is doing. It PROGRAMMER does. > The input to H(D,D) does not tell H to look at the behavior of D(D). You are currently too ignorant to understand this mainly because you don't want to bother to seriously consider that I may be correct. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 23:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dnrp$3qbnd$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107032 |
On 6/12/24 10:48 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>>>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >>>>>> >>>>>> How do you say that? >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >>>>>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified >>>>>>> by this finite string input. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. >>>> >>>> But the formal question can be translated into English. >>>> >>>> And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a >>>> requirements doecument. >>>> >>>> "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they just >>>> do what they are programmed to do. >>> >>> H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated by H. >>> No one ever tells it anything different than this. >> >> H doesn't need to "know" what it is doing. It PROGRAMMER does. >> > > The input to H(D,D) does not tell H to look at the behavior of D(D). > > You are currently too ignorant to understand this mainly because > you don't want to bother to seriously consider that I may be correct. > > Of course the input doesn't tell it that. The problem description tells the programmer that is what he was supposed to do. You CAN'T be correct, as you admit you aren't working on the problem that you say yoy are, because you, as the programmer, has decided that you don't need to actually follow the requirements, which just makes everything you do WRONG. You are about a century late for your argument. Part of the genesis of the Halting Problem was the concept of a Universal Problem Solver Program (sort of like a Universal Turing Machine, only broader in scope), that, if it could be made, could be given the desccription of ANY problem, and it would crunch on it, and after a finite amount of time, would give the answer. Even if we couldn't actually figure out the program, but could only just prove that it could exist, and even if it might take a million years for it to answer a question, the fact that such a program could exist would mean a lot to mathematics. (Showing things like Completeness). This was an idea of a grand unification of problem spaces. Then, Turing showed that there existed a fundamental problem, that of algorithm halting, that he could show could NOT be computed, and thus the grand Universal Problem Solver could NOT be written, and then out of this, many of the actual limitations of what could be known and done were established.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 22:26 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dotf$22o4a$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107035 |
On 6/12/2024 10:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/12/24 10:48 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>>>>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How do you say that? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >>>>>>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified >>>>>>>> by this finite string input. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. >>>>> >>>>> But the formal question can be translated into English. >>>>> >>>>> And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a >>>>> requirements doecument. >>>>> >>>>> "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they just >>>>> do what they are programmed to do. >>>> >>>> H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated by H. >>>> No one ever tells it anything different than this. >>> >>> H doesn't need to "know" what it is doing. It PROGRAMMER does. >>> >> >> The input to H(D,D) does not tell H to look at the behavior of D(D). >> >> You are currently too ignorant to understand this mainly because >> you don't want to bother to seriously consider that I may be correct. >> >> > > Of course the input doesn't tell it that. The problem description tells > the programmer that is what he was supposed to do. > The INPUT must tell the program what the question is. What does the expression: COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS mean to you in your own words? -- 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 23:49 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dq7g$3qbnc$13@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107039 |
On 6/12/24 11:26 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 10:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 10:48 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 9:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 10:25 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 9:16 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:36 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:27 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> THAT IS THE QUESTION THAT IS ASSUMED. >>>>>>>>> THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How do you say that? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you not understand the meaning of the words "Halt Decider"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> H must derive the question that it is being asked by computing >>>>>>>>> the mapping from its finite string input to the behavior specified >>>>>>>>> by this finite string input. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, Definitions don't mean anything? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Halt deciders are not being asked English questions nitwit. >>>>>> >>>>>> But the formal question can be translated into English. >>>>>> >>>>>> And the PROBLEM statements can be written in English as a >>>>>> requirements doecument. >>>>>> >>>>>> "Halt Deciders" don't need to "understand" the question, they just >>>>>> do what they are programmed to do. >>>>> >>>>> H can only see that it must report on D correctly simulated by H. >>>>> No one ever tells it anything different than this. >>>> >>>> H doesn't need to "know" what it is doing. It PROGRAMMER does. >>>> >>> >>> The input to H(D,D) does not tell H to look at the behavior of D(D). >>> >>> You are currently too ignorant to understand this mainly because >>> you don't want to bother to seriously consider that I may be correct. >>> >>> >> >> Of course the input doesn't tell it that. The problem description >> tells the programmer that is what he was supposed to do. >> > > The INPUT must tell the program what the question is. > What does the expression: COMPUTE THE MAPPING FROM INPUTS > mean to you in your own words? > Of course not. Most programs just read in data, and do the operation they were programmed to do on the data. I will ask you, where in the input to H is the question about asking about its behavior encoded in ANY way? The question a program answers, is part of the program specification, not the input. Yes, some programs implement a flexible question, where some of the details about the question are added to the input, but the form of that question is still fully specified by the program specifications. You just don't understand what programs are. I guess you are just a failed coder.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 17 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web