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 18 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-12 23:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4dr86$2379j$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107041 |
On 6/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > 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. > Simplistic. H must be able to objectively determine the exact behavior that it is to report on and no one ever told it about D(D). They only told it about D correctly simulated by H. > 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. > The input must tell H about its behavior and it does not tell H about D(D). > 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. I have two patents on OCR technology. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 08:23 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4eaak$3rbs4$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107045 |
Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 23:06:30 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> 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: >>>>>>>>>>> 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. The input is D(D), and the answer is its behaviour, not how H wrongly simulates it. >>>>>>> H can only see that it must report on D simulated by H. >>>>>>> No one ever tells it anything different than this. H does not know about or simulate itself. It must simply report on D, however it does it. If it were reporting on the result of what it was simulating, it could give any answer it wanted. >>>>> The input to H(D,D) does not tell H to look at the behavior of D(D). WHAT? It even simulates it! > H must be able to objectively determine the exact behavior that it is to > report on and no one ever told it about D(D). They only told it about D > correctly simulated by H. The input is D(D), not H(D,D). The latter is the whole result. If we were computing H(H,D(D)), it could give any answer it wanted and would be tautologically correct. "I computed this result, therefore I am correct." H is not part of the input. >> 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. > The input must tell H about its behavior and it does not tell H about > D(D). Huh? When the input is D(D), H can know its behaviour. -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 07:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4el9k$3rsd6$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107045 |
On 6/13/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> 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. >> > > Simplistic. > H must be able to objectively determine the exact behavior > that it is to report on and no one ever told it about D(D). > They only told it about D correctly simulated by H. No, it does not. To be CORRECT, it needs to determine that behavior. And for the problem to be valid, there needs to be an objective standard to measure the answer, but t doesn't need to be computable by H. > >> 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. >> > > The input must tell H about its behavior and it does not tell > H about D(D). No, the input must represent the thing being asked about. And the input to H(D,D) does FULLY specify the information needed to determine the answer (at least when you include that the input ALSO includes all the instructions of H and everything that H calls, else YOU made the error of not giving H enough information) > >> 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. > > I have two patents on OCR technology. > So? Were they actually useful? I have several patents, and a number of idea protected under trade secrets because they were to useful to be patented.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 08:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4esmp$28g4v$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107055 |
On 6/13/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/13/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> 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. >>> >> >> Simplistic. >> H must be able to objectively determine the exact behavior >> that it is to report on and no one ever told it about D(D). >> They only told it about D correctly simulated by H. > > No, it does not. > > To be CORRECT, it needs to determine that behavior. > The input to H(D,D) does not provide the means for H to determine the behavior of D(D). I keep asking you to show all of the steps of how H(D,D) determines the behavior of D(D) from its input and you dodge because you know that I am correct. H(D,D) is not told about the behavior of D(D) and you cannot show otherwise with any sequence of steps of correct reasoning. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 17:19 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4f9mt$3smqv$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107064 |
Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:37:29 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/13/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/13/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> 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: > The input to H(D,D) does not provide the means for H to determine the > behavior of D(D). Oh, sure it does. All the info is right there! Just add simulation! You do know how that works, right? > I keep asking you to show all of the steps of how H(D,D) determines the > behavior of D(D) from its input and you dodge because you know that I am > correct. You are correct: your H does not determine the behaviour of D(D). Why does it arbitrarily decide to halt instead of continuing the simulation? > H(D,D) is not told about the behavior of D(D) and you cannot show > otherwise with any sequence of steps of correct reasoning. H is told about D and can simulate what it does. That's why we're looking for a machine that finds that out for every machine. -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 22:19 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4g9c3$3tn6q$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107064 |
On 6/13/24 9:37 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/13/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/13/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> Simplistic. >>> H must be able to objectively determine the exact behavior >>> that it is to report on and no one ever told it about D(D). >>> They only told it about D correctly simulated by H. >> >> No, it does not. >> >> To be CORRECT, it needs to determine that behavior. >> > The input to H(D,D) does not provide the means for H to determine > the behavior of D(D). So? Why does it need to, that is the job of H to figure out, The INPUT does DEFINE the correct answer, but not in a method that H can use itself. > > I keep asking you to show all of the steps of how H(D,D) determines > the behavior of D(D) from its input and you dodge because you know > that I am correct. And why do I need to, because that isn't the question. I guess you are just admitting you accept a proble to solve, and are stuck and are trying to get others to do it for yoiu. > > H(D,D) is not told about the behavior of D(D) and you cannot show > otherwise with any sequence of steps of correct reasoning. > But it is, just not in a computable manner, the behavior of the input to H(D,D) is EXACTLY the behavor of UTM(D,D). Now, the problem is that H had to be written BEFORE D was (as the code for D is dependent on H) since H is making a claim to handle "all comers" (i.e. answer for EVERY input). This means the input program can use a copy of the decider to compute what it will answer and then do the opposite. This just shows that the problem does turn out to be uncomputable, because the power of the computation system grows faster than the ability to decide on the computation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 21:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4g9hf$2mnuk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107086 |
On 6/13/2024 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/13/24 9:37 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/13/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/13/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Simplistic. >>>> H must be able to objectively determine the exact behavior >>>> that it is to report on and no one ever told it about D(D). >>>> They only told it about D correctly simulated by H. >>> >>> No, it does not. >>> >>> To be CORRECT, it needs to determine that behavior. >>> >> The input to H(D,D) does not provide the means for H to determine >> the behavior of D(D). > > So? Why does it need to, that is the job of H to figure out, > > The INPUT does DEFINE the correct answer, but not in a method that H can > use itself. > >> >> I keep asking you to show all of the steps of how H(D,D) determines >> the behavior of D(D) from its input and you dodge because you know >> that I am correct. > > And why do I need to, because that isn't the question. > > I guess you are just admitting you accept a proble to solve, and are > stuck and are trying to get others to do it for yoiu. > >> >> H(D,D) is not told about the behavior of D(D) and you cannot show >> otherwise with any sequence of steps of correct reasoning. >> > > But it is, just not in a computable manner, the behavior of the input to > H(D,D) is EXACTLY the behavor of UTM(D,D). > > Now, the problem is that H had to be written BEFORE D was (as the code > for D is dependent on H) since H is making a claim to handle "all > comers" (i.e. answer for EVERY input). This means the input program can > use a copy of the decider to compute what it will answer and then do the > opposite. > > This just shows that the problem does turn out to be uncomputable, > because the power of the computation system grows faster than the > ability to decide on the computation. See my prior reply -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 23:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4gc3j$3tn6r$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107087 |
On 6/13/24 10:22 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/13/2024 9:19 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/13/24 9:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/13/2024 6:31 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/13/24 12:06 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 10:49 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Simplistic. >>>>> H must be able to objectively determine the exact behavior >>>>> that it is to report on and no one ever told it about D(D). >>>>> They only told it about D correctly simulated by H. >>>> >>>> No, it does not. >>>> >>>> To be CORRECT, it needs to determine that behavior. >>>> >>> The input to H(D,D) does not provide the means for H to determine >>> the behavior of D(D). >> >> So? Why does it need to, that is the job of H to figure out, >> >> The INPUT does DEFINE the correct answer, but not in a method that H >> can use itself. >> >>> >>> I keep asking you to show all of the steps of how H(D,D) determines >>> the behavior of D(D) from its input and you dodge because you know >>> that I am correct. >> >> And why do I need to, because that isn't the question. >> >> I guess you are just admitting you accept a proble to solve, and are >> stuck and are trying to get others to do it for yoiu. >> >>> >>> H(D,D) is not told about the behavior of D(D) and you cannot show >>> otherwise with any sequence of steps of correct reasoning. >>> >> >> But it is, just not in a computable manner, the behavior of the input >> to H(D,D) is EXACTLY the behavor of UTM(D,D). >> >> Now, the problem is that H had to be written BEFORE D was (as the code >> for D is dependent on H) since H is making a claim to handle "all >> comers" (i.e. answer for EVERY input). This means the input program >> can use a copy of the decider to compute what it will answer and then >> do the opposite. >> >> This just shows that the problem does turn out to be uncomputable, >> because the power of the computation system grows faster than the >> ability to decide on the computation. > > See my prior reply > If you mean the one in this thread about an hour or so ago, that doesn't actualy prove your goal that H can be a correct Halt Decider, just that you don't understand what that means.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 08:12 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4e9l5$3rbs4$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107019 |
Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:50:42 -0500 schrieb olcott: > 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: >>>>>>>> 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. And give the right answer: does D(D) halt? >>>>>> 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* Oh yes, it is. We want to know if D(D) halts. >>>> So, H isn'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 answers the wrong question. >> 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. Nitwit. It can't derive the answer. >>> 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. Which is "does D(D) halt?", not "can I simulate this?". > 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 H is not the halt decider you are looking for. -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 08:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations |
| Message-ID | <v4equn$28g4v$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107048 |
On 6/13/2024 3:12 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:50:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> 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:
>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
> And give the right answer: does D(D) halt?
>>>>>>> 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*
> Oh yes, it is. We want to know if D(D) halts.
>>>>> So, H isn'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 answers the wrong question.
>>> 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.
> Nitwit. It can't derive the answer.
>
>>>> 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.
> Which is "does D(D) halt?", not "can I simulate this?".
>
Halt deciders do not generally understand English, your assumption
that they do is ridiculously false.
H(D,D) computes the mapping from its finite string input to derive
the behavior that it must report on.
int sum(int x, int y) {return x + y; }
sum(3,4) must provide the sum of 3+4 EVEN IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE.
H(D,D) must provide that halt status of D correctly simulated by H
EVEN IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE.
You may believe in your mind that H(D,D) must report on the behavior
of D(D) yet H(D,D) does not share this belief.
There is no path from the input to H(D,D) by applying finite string
transformation rules to the input to derived the behavior of D(D).
>> 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 H is not the halt decider you are looking for.
>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 17:06 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transfermentations |
| Message-ID | <v4f8uj$3smqv$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107061 |
Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:07:35 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/13/2024 3:12 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:50:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>> And give the right answer: does D(D) halt?
>>>>>>>> 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*
>> Oh yes, it is. We want to know if D(D) halts.
Why would we ask a machine "What is your own result?"?
>>>>>> 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 NOT THE QUESTION THAT IS BEING ASKED.
>> H answers the wrong question.
It answers "I give this result, because I say so". The opposite were
equally valid.
>>>>> 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.
>> Nitwit. It can't derive the answer.
>>> H must compute question that it is being asked.
If H doesn't, it is not what we are looking for.
>> Which is "does D(D) halt?", not "can I simulate this?".
> Halt deciders do not generally understand English, your assumption that
> they do is ridiculously false.
Of course not. Ridiculous is your assumption that I wasn't talking about
its specification.
> H(D,D) computes the mapping from its finite string input to derive the
> behavior that it must report on.
The behaviour of D(D) itself doesn't change by whatever H does.
> int sum(int x, int y) {return x + y; }
> sum(3,4) must provide the sum of 3+4 EVEN IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE.
Yes, and sum {return x*y} is a faulty implementation. Why would I expect
otherwise?
> H(D,D) must provide that halt status of D correctly simulated by H EVEN
> IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE.
It must provide the halt status, whether simulated by anything or not.
A simulation that changes it is called wrong.
> You may believe in your mind that H(D,D) must report on the behavior of
> D(D) yet H(D,D) does not share this belief.
Then I don't care about H. I want my H to report on D(D).
> There is no path from the input to H(D,D) by applying finite string
> transformation rules to the input to derived the behavior of D(D).
Which is why a halt decider is impossible.
>>> 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 H is not the halt decider you are looking for.
The H that violates the specification is not the true H.
--
joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 13:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transfermentations |
| Message-ID | <v4fcgf$2co81$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107074 |
On 6/13/2024 12:06 PM, joes wrote: > Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:07:35 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/13/2024 3:12 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:50:42 -0500 schrieb olcott: > >> There is no path from the input to H(D,D) by applying finite string >> transformation rules to the input to derived the behavior of D(D). > > Which is why a halt decider is impossible. > I am going to stop replying to your posts your disrespect for me in anchored in your own ignorance. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 22:30 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transfermentations |
| Message-ID | <v4g9vg$3tn6r$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107080 |
On 6/13/24 2:07 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/13/2024 12:06 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:07:35 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/13/2024 3:12 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:50:42 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> >>> There is no path from the input to H(D,D) by applying finite string >>> transformation rules to the input to derived the behavior of D(D). > > >> Which is why a halt decider is impossible. >> > I am going to stop replying to your posts your disrespect > for me in anchored in your own ignorance. > > No, you stop replying to people who make it obvious that YOU are just ignorant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 21:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transfermentations |
| Message-ID | <v4ga2m$2mq4h$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107089 |
On 6/13/2024 9:30 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/13/24 2:07 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/13/2024 12:06 PM, joes wrote: >>> Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 08:07:35 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/13/2024 3:12 AM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:50:42 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> >>>> There is no path from the input to H(D,D) by applying finite string >>>> transformation rules to the input to derived the behavior of D(D). >> > >>> Which is why a halt decider is impossible. >>> >> I am going to stop replying to your posts your disrespect >> for me in anchored in your own ignorance. >> >> > > No, you stop replying to people who make it obvious that YOU are just > ignorant. When he linked to crackpots I stop looking at what he says. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 22:27 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations |
| Message-ID | <v4g9qn$3tn6r$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107061 |
On 6/13/24 9:07 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/13/2024 3:12 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:50:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>> And give the right answer: does D(D) halt?
>>>>>>>> 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*
>> Oh yes, it is. We want to know if D(D) halts.
>>>>>> So, H isn'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 answers the wrong question.
>>>> 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.
>> Nitwit. It can't derive the answer.
>>
>>>>> 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.
>> Which is "does D(D) halt?", not "can I simulate this?".
>>
>
> Halt deciders do not generally understand English, your assumption
> that they do is ridiculously false.
No, but there programmer can, and that is who created H.
>
> H(D,D) computes the mapping from its finite string input to derive
> the behavior that it must report on.
Right, which *IS* (by the definition of a Halt decider) the behavior of
the directly executed machine the input represents.
>
> int sum(int x, int y) {return x + y; }
> sum(3,4) must provide the sum of 3+4 EVEN IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE.
Right, because that *IS* the definition of summig.
So, YOU trying to claim that H(D,D) can report on the "correct
simulation by H" is EXACTLY like saying sum(3,4) can report on 5+6.
>
> H(D,D) must provide that halt status of D correctly simulated by H
> EVEN IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE.
WHere do you get that form?
It seems, from the POOP up your ass.
I guess you are just admitting that you can't understand the English
statement of the problem
>
> You may believe in your mind that H(D,D) must report on the behavior
> of D(D) yet H(D,D) does not share this belief.
H doesn't "believe" anything, it is just an antomaton and does what it
is programmed to do. Since you were the programmer, I guess you are just
admitting you do understand the definition of the problem you started 20
years ago.
So sorry you wasted so much time.
>
> There is no path from the input to H(D,D) by applying finite string
> transformation rules to the input to derived the behavior of D(D).
So? Who said there had to be?
After all, the full question is does there exist such a path. So, you
just statement that you agree with the statement you have been trying to
disprove for so long.
Doesn't that feel a bit silly to you?
>
>>> 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 H is not the halt decider you are looking for.
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 21:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite sting transformations |
| Message-ID | <v4ga0v$2mq4h$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107088 |
On 6/13/2024 9:27 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/13/24 9:07 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/13/2024 3:12 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 20:50:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> 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:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>> And give the right answer: does D(D) halt?
>>>>>>>>> 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*
>>> Oh yes, it is. We want to know if D(D) halts.
>>>>>>> So, H isn'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 answers the wrong question.
>>>>> 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.
>>> Nitwit. It can't derive the answer.
>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>> Which is "does D(D) halt?", not "can I simulate this?".
>>>
>>
>> Halt deciders do not generally understand English, your assumption
>> that they do is ridiculously false.
>
> No, but there programmer can, and that is who created H.
>
>>
>> H(D,D) computes the mapping from its finite string input to derive
>> the behavior that it must report on.
>
> Right, which *IS* (by the definition of a Halt decider) the behavior of
> the directly executed machine the input represents.
>
>>
>> int sum(int x, int y) {return x + y; }
>> sum(3,4) must provide the sum of 3+4 EVEN IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE.
>
> Right, because that *IS* the definition of summig.
>
> So, YOU trying to claim that H(D,D) can report on the "correct
> simulation by H" is EXACTLY like saying sum(3,4) can report on 5+6.
>
>>
>> H(D,D) must provide that halt status of D correctly simulated by H
>> EVEN IF YOU EXPECT OTHERWISE.
>
> WHere do you get that form?
>
> It seems, from the POOP up your ass.
>
> I guess you are just admitting that you can't understand the English
> statement of the problem
>
>>
>> You may believe in your mind that H(D,D) must report on the behavior
>> of D(D) yet H(D,D) does not share this belief.
>
> H doesn't "believe" anything, it is just an antomaton and does what it
> is programmed to do. Since you were the programmer, I guess you are just
> admitting you do understand the definition of the problem you started 20
> years ago.
>
> So sorry you wasted so much time.
>
>>
>> There is no path from the input to H(D,D) by applying finite string
>> transformation rules to the input to derived the behavior of D(D).
>
> So? Who said there had to be?
>
> After all, the full question is does there exist such a path. So, you
> just statement that you agree with the statement you have been trying to
> disprove for so long.
>
> Doesn't that feel a bit silly to you?
>
>>
>>>> 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 H is not the halt decider you are looking for.
>>>
>>
>
I am only going to respond to you here:
On 6/13/2024 8:39 PM, olcott wrote:
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 08:49 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4ebr4$3rbs4$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107002 |
Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:25:14 -0500 schrieb olcott: > 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: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means. >>>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do it, >>>> that is a UTM. >> 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 [it] 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* It has a *specification* it must fulfill. -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 08:10 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4er3t$28g4v$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107052 |
On 6/13/2024 3:49 AM, joes wrote: > Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:25:14 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> 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: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> The problem is that you don't understand what a xxxx-decider means. > >>>>> As I pointed out, there ARE finite-string transformations that do it, >>>>> that is a UTM. > >>> 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 [it] 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* > It has a *specification* it must fulfill. > The specification is only in your own mind and cannot be encoded as a program/input pair. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 14:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4f033$260h$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #107062 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/13/2024 3:49 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:25:14 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> 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. >>>> 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 [it] 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* >> It has a *specification* it must fulfill. > The specification is only in your own mind .... The specification is "calculate whether a particular program with a particular input halts". > .... and cannot be encoded as a program/input pair. Indeed, not. It's good to see you finally accepting the Halting Therem. > -- > Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 10:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- rewritten |
| Message-ID | <v4f214$2akmh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107066 |
On 6/13/2024 9:35 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/13/2024 3:49 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:25:14 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> 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. > >>>>> 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 [it] 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* >>> It has a *specification* it must fulfill. > > >> The specification is only in your own mind .... > > The specification is "calculate whether a particular program with a > particular input halts". > Yes that <is> what the textbooks say, none-the-less halt deciders really cannot read textbooks. Instead they go by the behavior that their input specifies. All halt deciders compute the mapping from their inputs... When we actually compute the mapping from the x86 machine language finite string input to H(D,D) using the finite string transformation rules specified by the semantics of the x86 programming language this DOES NOT MAP TO THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). When I ask anyone to show the detailed steps of the mapping from the machine language finite string of D to the behavior of D(D) *THEY CHANGE THE SUBJECT BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNOW THAT I AM CORRECT* _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]
Page 18 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web