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 15 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 19 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 11:00 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kaas$2218$14@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107186 |
On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>> >>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes >>> 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 that reaches the >>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>> >> >> Why? I don't claim it can. >> > > We must fully resolve this point before proceeding on any other > halting problem points. If the reason that you don't answer is > that this is simply over-your-head then it may not make sense to > continue talking about these things with you. > > This is the key point that you must understand otherwise our > conversation hit the brick wall of your persistently maintained > ignorance. > > If there is no mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior > of D(D) then *H IS NOT BEING ASKED ABOUT THIS BEHAVIOR* > > You just seem to be stuck in your lies. There *IS* a mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D), since we have that H(D,D) returns 0, so D(D) halts so the proper mapping of the input (D,D) is to 1. The fact that H didn't give that answer just makes it wrong, and if you change H, we need to start ALL OVER. So, since there IS a mapping from (D,D) -> 1 (for the D built on this H) it is totally proper to ask this H about this D,D I don't claim it is possible for this H to compute this mapping itself, and there is no requirement that it be able to. The proof shows that for ANY H that you might try to think up, there exist a specific input that this specific H will get wrong, and thus there can not exist an H that gets all input wrong, and thus there does not exist an algorithm to allow any decider to compute the mapping. That is perfectly fine, that just says that the Halting mapping is an uncomputable mapping, which is a perfectly valid result. Note, part of your problem is you express the question incorrectly, because you have a false idea of what is true. There is no requirement that H be able to "correctly simulate" its input to get the answer, and in fact, because we showed that Halting in non-computable, it means there is no "correct simulation" that the decider itself can do to get the answer. The other problem is how you try to express the input "D". By trying to exclude the code for H, you make D NOT a valid input to decide on, as we can only ask for the decision about a "computation", which means an algorithm (+input) that is ONLY dependent on that input, since the x86 code for just the function D doesn't meet that requrement, it isn't a valid representation for the input of the program D. The program D FULLY INCLUDES all the code that it calls, and such includes the x86 code of H, and everything that H calls. If you can't treat that is part of "the input" then your decider just fails at the requirements stage. Once we include that copy of H, when you argue about changing H, you can't change the copy of H that D uses, and if that means you can't actualy change H, then you can't and you are arguing out of false assumptions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 10:07 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kamr$3gc4t$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107191 |
On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes >>>> 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 that reaches the >>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>> >>> >>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>> >> >> We must fully resolve this point before proceeding on any other >> halting problem points. If the reason that you don't answer is >> that this is simply over-your-head then it may not make sense to >> continue talking about these things with you. >> >> This is the key point that you must understand otherwise our >> conversation hit the brick wall of your persistently maintained >> ignorance. >> >> If there is no mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior >> of D(D) then *H IS NOT BEING ASKED ABOUT THIS BEHAVIOR* >> >> > > You just seem to be stuck in your lies. > > There *IS* a mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D), *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* *ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING BESIDES ALL OF THE STEPS WILL BE REJECTED* *OUT-OF-HAND AS WRONG ANSWER* _D() [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp [00000d1d](01) c3 ret Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 11:12 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kb10$2218$15@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107194 |
On 6/15/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes >>>>> 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 that reaches the >>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>> >>> >>> We must fully resolve this point before proceeding on any other >>> halting problem points. If the reason that you don't answer is >>> that this is simply over-your-head then it may not make sense to >>> continue talking about these things with you. >>> >>> This is the key point that you must understand otherwise our >>> conversation hit the brick wall of your persistently maintained >>> ignorance. >>> >>> If there is no mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior >>> of D(D) then *H IS NOT BEING ASKED ABOUT THIS BEHAVIOR* >>> >>> >> >> You just seem to be stuck in your lies. >> >> There *IS* a mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D), > > *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* > *ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING BESIDES ALL OF THE STEPS WILL BE REJECTED* > *OUT-OF-HAND AS WRONG ANSWER* Mappings don't HAVE steps. The mapping, for this H and D, is: (D,D) -> 1 This is true, as it can be shown that D(D) will Halt, since H(D,D) returns 0. By definition, Halting Machines mean the mapping of the representations of that machine are to Halting (which is represented by 1 for your decider). You are just showing a total ignorance of the topic. > > _D() > [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp > [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D > [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D > [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H > [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 > [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax > [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 > [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax > [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c > [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 > [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp > [00000d1d](01) c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 10:54 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kdgf$3h3iu$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107196 |
On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes >>>>>> 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 that reaches the >>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>> >>>> >>>> We must fully resolve this point before proceeding on any other >>>> halting problem points. If the reason that you don't answer is >>>> that this is simply over-your-head then it may not make sense to >>>> continue talking about these things with you. >>>> >>>> This is the key point that you must understand otherwise our >>>> conversation hit the brick wall of your persistently maintained >>>> ignorance. >>>> >>>> If there is no mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior >>>> of D(D) then *H IS NOT BEING ASKED ABOUT THIS BEHAVIOR* >>>> >>>> >>> >>> You just seem to be stuck in your lies. >>> >>> There *IS* a mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D), >> >> *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* >> *ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING BESIDES ALL OF THE STEPS WILL BE REJECTED* >> *OUT-OF-HAND AS WRONG ANSWER* > > Mappings don't HAVE steps. > > The mapping, for this H and D, is: > > (D,D) -> 1 > *Wrong mapping* I am not asking for a mapping from the input to H(D,D) to a possible output from H(D,D). I am asking for a mapping from the machine language finite string of the input to H(D,D) to each of the individual steps of the behavior of D(D). The first six steps of the mapping from the input to H(D,D) and the behavior of D(D) are the execution/simulation of the machine code at address range [00000cfc] to [00000d06]. _D() [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp [00000d1d](01) c3 ret Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 16:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kef8$2cg4$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107205 |
Am Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:54:54 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>> *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* >> The mapping, for this H and D, is: >> (D,D) -> 1 > I am asking for a mapping from the machine language finite string of the > input to H(D,D) to each of the individual steps of the behavior of D(D). D calls H, which by definition terminates. From its return value we fork to either enter an endless loop or halt. Then H (which is not allowed to simulate D if that doesn't halt) gives the result we just used to fork. -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 11:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kev7$3h3iu$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107206 |
On 6/15/2024 11:11 AM, joes wrote: > Am Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:54:54 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: > >>>> *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* >>> The mapping, for this H and D, is: >>> (D,D) -> 1 >> I am asking for a mapping from the machine language finite string of the >> input to H(D,D) to each of the individual steps of the behavior of D(D). *THIS SEEMS WAY WAY OVER YOUR HEAD* It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes 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 that reaches the behavior of the directly executed D(D) The first six steps of this mapping are when instructions at the machine address range of [00000cfc] to [00000d06] are simulated/executed. After that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H diverges from the behavior of D(D) because the call to H(D,D) by D correctly simulated by H cannot possibly return to D. _D() [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp [00000d1d](01) c3 ret Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] > D calls H, which by definition terminates. From its return value we fork > to either enter an endless loop or halt. Then H (which is not allowed to > simulate D if that doesn't halt) gives the result we just used to fork. > -- 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 | 2024-06-15 12:26 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kfbt$2219$8@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107209 |
On 6/15/24 12:19 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 11:11 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:54:54 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/15/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >> >>>>> *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* >>>> The mapping, for this H and D, is: >>>> (D,D) -> 1 >>> I am asking for a mapping from the machine language finite string of the >>> input to H(D,D) to each of the individual steps of the behavior of D(D). > > *THIS SEEMS WAY WAY OVER YOUR HEAD* > It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes > 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 that reaches the > behavior of the directly executed D(D) Why is that contingent on anyone but the programmer who claims to be able to write such a decider? > The first six steps of this mapping are when instructions > at the machine address range of [00000cfc] to [00000d06] > are simulated/executed. > > After that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H diverges > from the behavior of D(D) because the call to H(D,D) by D > correctly simulated by H cannot possibly return to D. Which just shows that H can not actually correctly simulate all of the behavior of the input, but it always gives up and just guesses at an answer, which is wrong. > > _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] > > > >> D calls H, which by definition terminates. From its return value we fork >> to either enter an endless loop or halt. Then H (which is not allowed to >> simulate D if that doesn't halt) gives the result we just used to fork. >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 11:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kfkm$3hugj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107213 |
On 6/15/2024 11:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 12:19 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 11:11 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:54:54 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>> >>>>>> *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* >>>>> The mapping, for this H and D, is: >>>>> (D,D) -> 1 >>>> I am asking for a mapping from the machine language finite string of >>>> the >>>> input to H(D,D) to each of the individual steps of the behavior of >>>> D(D). >> >> *THIS SEEMS WAY WAY OVER YOUR HEAD* >> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes >> 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 that reaches the >> behavior of the directly executed D(D) > > Why is that contingent on anyone but the programmer who claims to be > able to write such a decider? > > >> The first six steps of this mapping are when instructions >> at the machine address range of [00000cfc] to [00000d06] >> are simulated/executed. >> >> After that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H diverges >> from the behavior of D(D) because the call to H(D,D) by D >> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly return to D. > > Which just shows that H can not actually correctly simulate all of the > behavior of the input, but it always gives up and just guesses at an > answer, which is wrong. > >> >> _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] >> >> >> >>> D calls H, which by definition terminates. From its return value we fork >>> to either enter an endless loop or halt. Then H (which is not allowed to >>> simulate D if that doesn't halt) gives the result we just used to fork. >>> >> > ONLY addressing V3 -- 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 | 2024-06-15 12:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kg81$2218$21@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107214 |
On 6/15/24 12:31 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 11:26 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 12:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 11:11 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Sat, 15 Jun 2024 10:54:54 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* >>>>>> The mapping, for this H and D, is: >>>>>> (D,D) -> 1 >>>>> I am asking for a mapping from the machine language finite string >>>>> of the >>>>> input to H(D,D) to each of the individual steps of the behavior of >>>>> D(D). >>> >>> *THIS SEEMS WAY WAY OVER YOUR HEAD* >>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes >>> 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 that reaches the >>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >> >> Why is that contingent on anyone but the programmer who claims to be >> able to write such a decider? >> >> >>> The first six steps of this mapping are when instructions >>> at the machine address range of [00000cfc] to [00000d06] >>> are simulated/executed. >>> >>> After that the behavior of D correctly simulated by H diverges >>> from the behavior of D(D) because the call to H(D,D) by D >>> correctly simulated by H cannot possibly return to D. >> >> Which just shows that H can not actually correctly simulate all of the >> behavior of the input, but it always gives up and just guesses at an >> answer, which is wrong. >> >>> >>> _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] >>> >>> >>> >>>> D calls H, which by definition terminates. From its return value we >>>> fork >>>> to either enter an endless loop or halt. Then H (which is not >>>> allowed to >>>> simulate D if that doesn't halt) gives the result we just used to fork. >>>> >>> >> > > ONLY addressing V3 Which is why you will never be able to publsih, because they won't let you do that. You STILL are fundamentally ignoring the basic definitions of the system, and thus are just LYING about what you are doing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 12:12 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kehu$2219$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107205 |
On 6/15/24 11:54 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes >>>>>>> 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 that reaches the >>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We must fully resolve this point before proceeding on any other >>>>> halting problem points. If the reason that you don't answer is >>>>> that this is simply over-your-head then it may not make sense to >>>>> continue talking about these things with you. >>>>> >>>>> This is the key point that you must understand otherwise our >>>>> conversation hit the brick wall of your persistently maintained >>>>> ignorance. >>>>> >>>>> If there is no mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior >>>>> of D(D) then *H IS NOT BEING ASKED ABOUT THIS BEHAVIOR* >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> You just seem to be stuck in your lies. >>>> >>>> There *IS* a mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D), >>> >>> *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* >>> *ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING BESIDES ALL OF THE STEPS WILL BE REJECTED* >>> *OUT-OF-HAND AS WRONG ANSWER* >> >> Mappings don't HAVE steps. >> >> The mapping, for this H and D, is: >> >> (D,D) -> 1 >> > > *Wrong mapping* > I am not asking for a mapping from the input to H(D,D) > to a possible output from H(D,D). So, are you admitting you are just giving up? Or you don't want shown the answer that proves you wrong? > > I am asking for a mapping from the machine language finite > string of the input to H(D,D) to each of the individual steps > of the behavior of D(D). Why? That isn't the "mapping" that defines what H is supposed to answer with, and isn't what would normally be called a "mapping" at all. That would just be the steps of simulaton. I guess you are just trying again to be deceitful by changing your definitions, just showing how your "native tounge" is lies. > > The first six steps of the mapping from the input to H(D,D) > and the behavior of D(D) are the execution/simulation of > the machine code at address range [00000cfc] to [00000d06]. So? And to be a "correct simulation" by your definitions, it must then simulate the Call H instruction, and then the instructions of H never to retutn to D again, unless it reaches the point where H return the value 0, which appears to be impossible to get to. > > _D() > [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp > [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D > [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D > [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H > [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 > [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax > [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 > [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax > [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c > [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 > [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp > [00000d1d](01) c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 11:23 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V2 ---ignoring all other replies |
| Message-ID | <v4kf6e$3h3iu$8@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107208 |
On 6/15/2024 11:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 11:54 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 10:12 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 11:07 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/15/2024 10:00 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/24 10:37 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes >>>>>>>> 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 that reaches the >>>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We must fully resolve this point before proceeding on any other >>>>>> halting problem points. If the reason that you don't answer is >>>>>> that this is simply over-your-head then it may not make sense to >>>>>> continue talking about these things with you. >>>>>> >>>>>> This is the key point that you must understand otherwise our >>>>>> conversation hit the brick wall of your persistently maintained >>>>>> ignorance. >>>>>> >>>>>> If there is no mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior >>>>>> of D(D) then *H IS NOT BEING ASKED ABOUT THIS BEHAVIOR* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You just seem to be stuck in your lies. >>>>> >>>>> There *IS* a mapping from the input to H(D,D) to the behavior of D(D), >>>> >>>> *Then do as I originally requested and provide ALL OF THE STEPS* >>>> *ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING BESIDES ALL OF THE STEPS WILL BE REJECTED* >>>> *OUT-OF-HAND AS WRONG ANSWER* >>> >>> Mappings don't HAVE steps. >>> >>> The mapping, for this H and D, is: >>> >>> (D,D) -> 1 >>> >> >> *Wrong mapping* >> I am not asking for a mapping from the input to H(D,D) >> to a possible output from H(D,D). > > So, are you admitting you are just giving up? Or you don't want shown > the answer that proves you wrong? > >> >> I am asking for a mapping from the machine language finite >> string of the input to H(D,D) to each of the individual steps >> of the behavior of D(D). > > Why? > *See my new V3 version of this* H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES -- 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 | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 11:57 -0500 |
| Subject | H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4kh6a$3hugj$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107083 |
On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >> >> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes >> 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 that reaches the >> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >> > > Why? I don't claim it can. When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. The first six steps of this mapping are when instructions at the machine address range of [00000cfc] to [00000d06] are simulated/executed. What are the remaining steps that prove that the input to H(D,D) has the behavior of D(D) ??? _D() [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp [00000d1d](01) c3 ret Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 13:17 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4kial$2219$10@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107220 |
On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>> >>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes >>> 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 that reaches the >>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>> >> >> Why? I don't claim it can. > > When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input > to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and > and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you > have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. No, by asking a Red Herring question, *YOU* are showing that YOU are not interested in Honest Dialog, because you have been backed in to a corner. The fact that you keep on trying to redefine terms in strange ways just shows that you intend to be deceptive, so you aren't even not interested in an Honest Dialog, but you want to engage in deception. It is YOUR problem to solve, and you are just proving that you can't do it and have wasted your life on stuff you can't prove. > > The first six steps of this mapping are when instructions > at the machine address range of [00000cfc] to [00000d06] > are simulated/executed. > > What are the remaining steps that prove that the input > to H(D,D) has the behavior of D(D) ??? THE DEFINITION YOU DUMMY. Remember, "Inputs" don't have behavior, as they are only "finite string" BEHAIVOR is what Programs have. By the definition of a Halting Decider, the decider is to report on the behavior of the program the input represents. SO, H(D,D) is asking about the Program D(D). Now, if H(D,D) is NOT asking about the behavior of program D(D), then you are just admitting that you lied and didn't follow the instructions of Linz or Sipser, because in both cases, the high level description of what those inputs do, is to ask H on the behaviors of themselves, and *YOU* coded that as a call to H(D,D). SO, either you admit that you have been LYING about building the input per the proof, or you are LYING about H(D,D) not asking about the behavior of D(D). Either way, you are just admitting to being an ignorant liar. > > _D() > [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp > [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D > [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D > [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H > [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 > [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax > [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 > [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax > [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c > [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 > [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp > [00000d1d](01) c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 12:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4kjkr$3iid3$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107223 |
On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes >>>> 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 that reaches the >>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>> >>> >>> Why? I don't claim it can. >> >> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. > > No, by asking a Red Herring question, *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* You either fail to understand that your attempt to answer that question will increase your understanding or you already know that the answer to that question proves that I am correct. > *YOU* are showing that YOU are not > interested in Honest Dialog, because you have been backed in to a > corner. You are the one that is backed into a corner here and no amount of pure bluster will get you out. Failing to provide the requested steps *is construed as your admission that I am correct* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 14:08 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4klb4$2219$12@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107226 |
On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes >>>>> 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 that reaches the >>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>> >>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. >> >> No, by asking a Red Herring question, > > *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to prove something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why? > You either fail to understand that your attempt to answer that > question will increase your understanding or you already know > that the answer to that question proves that I am correct. No, I KNOW the question to be a Red Herring, as it actually has NOTHING to do with the problem, you only think it does, and you want me top prove your false point. > >> *YOU* are showing that YOU are not interested in Honest Dialog, >> because you have been backed in to a corner. > > You are the one that is backed into a corner here and no amount > of pure bluster will get you out. Failing to provide the requested > steps *is construed as your admission that I am correct* > What corner am I backed into? The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is that it answers about the behavior of the directly executed input, not about the partial simulation of it done by the decider. YOU are the one stuck trying to claim that a wrong answer is right, and have been stuck there for years. No one, but you, cases about what the simulation by H does, as it stops before it gets the answer. We have the correct answer, and it isn't the one H gives.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 13:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4ko32$3jfm0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107229 |
On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes >>>>>> 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 that reaches the >>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>> >>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. >>> >>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, >> >> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* > > No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to prove > something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why? > In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not being asked about the behavior of D(D). Through this lack of understanding feel that your assumption that H is being asked about the behavior of D(D) is justified? >> You either fail to understand that your attempt to answer that >> question will increase your understanding or you already know >> that the answer to that question proves that I am correct. > > No, I KNOW the question to be a Red Herring, as it actually has NOTHING > to do with the problem, It has everything to do with a 100% fully specified complete instance of the problem. > you only think it does, and you want me top > prove your false point. > >> >>> *YOU* are showing that YOU are not interested in Honest Dialog, >>> because you have been backed in to a corner. >> >> You are the one that is backed into a corner here and no amount >> of pure bluster will get you out. Failing to provide the requested >> steps *is construed as your admission that I am correct* >> > > What corner am I backed into? > > The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is that it answers about the behavior > of the directly executed input, I prove a counter-example to this that no one ever noticed before because consistently everyone rejected the notion of a simulating halt decider out-of-hand without any review what-so-ever. It IS impossible for the input to H(D,D) to specify the behavior of D(D) and simply baselessly assuming otherwise GETS NO WHERE. > not about the partial simulation of it > done by the decider. > We can count to 5 and through mathematical induction we know that we can can beyond 5. > YOU are the one stuck trying to claim that a wrong answer is right, and > have been stuck there for years. > > No one, but you, cases about what the simulation by H does, as it stops > before it gets the answer. We have the correct answer, and it isn't the > one H gives. > If it actually stops before it gets an answer then you could show some finite number of steps of D correctly simulated by H that reach machine address [00000d1d]. The ONLY reason that you do not do this is that you know that I am correct. Fascism can only take over the planet while we continue to have no objective way to divide dangerous lies from truth. *That kind of thing has been my motivation all along* _D() [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp [00000d1d](01) c3 ret Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 19:15 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4l7aq$3n5c$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107231 |
On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes >>>>>>> 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 that reaches the >>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>> >>>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >>>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >>>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >>>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. >>>> >>>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, >>> >>> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* >> >> No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to prove >> something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why? >> > > In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not > being asked about the behavior of D(D). Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that your H isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything about the Halting Problem. > > Through this lack of understanding feel that your assumption > that H is being asked about the behavior of D(D) is justified? I assume that because you call it a Halt Decider. I guess you have just been lying about that for all these years. I guess every time you call something a Halt Decider, I can point out that no it isn't, as you have stated that you machines are not meeting the definition of a Halt Decider. > >>> You either fail to understand that your attempt to answer that >>> question will increase your understanding or you already know >>> that the answer to that question proves that I am correct. >> >> No, I KNOW the question to be a Red Herring, as it actually has >> NOTHING to do with the problem, > > It has everything to do with a 100% fully specified complete > instance of the problem. Nope, You just admitted it doesn't. Halt Deciding, BY DEFINITION, is about the behavior of the program described by the input. By your definiton of D(D), calling H(D,D) is supposed to be asking H to decide on D(D). If this is not true, you have just admitted that you haven't been working on the halting problem proof for YEARS, and just lying about it. > >> you only think it does, and you want me top prove your false point. >> >>> >>>> *YOU* are showing that YOU are not interested in Honest Dialog, >>>> because you have been backed in to a corner. >>> >>> You are the one that is backed into a corner here and no amount >>> of pure bluster will get you out. Failing to provide the requested >>> steps *is construed as your admission that I am correct* >>> >> >> What corner am I backed into? >> >> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider is that it answers about the behavior >> of the directly executed input, > > I prove a counter-example to this that no one ever noticed > before because consistently everyone rejected the notion of > a simulating halt decider out-of-hand without any review > what-so-ever. NO SUCH THING. YOU JUST DON'T KNOW THE RULES OF THE GAME YOU HAVE JUST PROVES THAT YOU ARE A LIAR Sorry, but that is the truth. > > It IS impossible for the input to H(D,D) to specify > the behavior of D(D) and simply baselessly assuming > otherwise GETS NO WHERE. > Nope, you are just showing that you are a total idiot and ignorant of the rules of Compuation Theory. >> not about the partial simulation of it done by the decider. >> > > We can count to 5 and through mathematical induction > we know that we can can beyond 5. If you can PROVE the induction step, which you haven't done. I don't think you even know how to do a proper proof by induction. after all, you don't know how to d a proper proof PERIOD. > >> YOU are the one stuck trying to claim that a wrong answer is right, >> and have been stuck there for years. >> >> No one, but you, cases about what the simulation by H does, as it >> stops before it gets the answer. We have the correct answer, and it >> isn't the one H gives. >> > > If it actually stops before it gets an answer then you could > show some finite number of steps of D correctly simulated by > H that reach machine address [00000d1d]. No, D run gets to the correct answer AFTER H stops simulating. > > The ONLY reason that you do not do this is that you know > that I am correct. Nope, you are STUPID. > > Fascism can only take over the planet while we continue to > have no objective way to divide dangerous lies from truth. > *That kind of thing has been my motivation all along* YOU ARE JUST SHOWING YOU ARE STUPID. YOU ARE WORSE THAN THE ELECTION DENIERS. > > _D() > [00000cfc](01) 55 push ebp > [00000cfd](02) 8bec mov ebp,esp > [00000cff](03) 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] > [00000d02](01) 50 push eax ; push D > [00000d03](03) 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] > [00000d06](01) 51 push ecx ; push D > [00000d07](05) e800feffff call 00000b0c ; call H > [00000d0c](03) 83c408 add esp,+08 > [00000d0f](02) 85c0 test eax,eax > [00000d11](02) 7404 jz 00000d17 > [00000d13](02) 33c0 xor eax,eax > [00000d15](02) eb05 jmp 00000d1c > [00000d17](05) b801000000 mov eax,00000001 > [00000d1c](01) 5d pop ebp > [00000d1d](01) c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0034) [00000d1d] > > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 18:40 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4l8pg$3m8b0$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107236 |
On 6/15/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H computes >>>>>>>> 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 that reaches the >>>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>>> >>>>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >>>>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >>>>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >>>>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. >>>>> >>>>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, >>>> >>>> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* >>> >>> No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to prove >>> something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why? >>> >> >> In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not >> being asked about the behavior of D(D). > > Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that your H > isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything about the > Halting Problem. > You are either too stubborn or too ignorant to understand that deciders report on what their input specifies and thus not what you think that this input should mean. >> >> Through this lack of understanding feel that your assumption >> that H is being asked about the behavior of D(D) is justified? > > I assume that because you call it a Halt Decider. > > > I guess you have just been lying about that for all these years. > > I guess every time you call something a Halt Decider, I can point out > that no it isn't, as you have stated that you machines are not meeting > the definition of a Halt Decider. > >> >>>> You either fail to understand that your attempt to answer that >>>> question will increase your understanding or you already know >>>> that the answer to that question proves that I am correct. >>> >>> No, I KNOW the question to be a Red Herring, as it actually has >>> NOTHING to do with the problem, >> >> It has everything to do with a 100% fully specified complete >> instance of the problem. > > Nope, You just admitted it doesn't. > > Halt Deciding, BY DEFINITION, is about the behavior of the program > described by the input. I conclusively proved otherwise and you are simply too stubborn or ignorant to comprehend this. > By your definiton of D(D), calling H(D,D) is > supposed to be asking H to decide on D(D). > Yes that fact that this is impossible and you don't even understand how it could be possible does not change you religious conviction that I must be wrong. > If this is not true, you have just admitted that you haven't been > working on the halting problem proof for YEARS, and just lying about it. > When I correct false assumptions that others have had about the halting problem that does not mean that I am not working on the halting problem. When people finally found out that the Earth is spherical that does not mean that they were not working on the shape of the Earth problem when these people overturned flat Earth. -- 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 | 2024-06-15 19:57 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4l9pi$3n5d$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107240 |
On 6/15/24 7:40 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H >>>>>>>>> computes >>>>>>>>> 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 that reaches the >>>>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >>>>>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >>>>>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >>>>>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, >>>>> >>>>> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* >>>> >>>> No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to prove >>>> something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why? >>>> >>> >>> In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not >>> being asked about the behavior of D(D). >> >> Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that your H >> isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything about the >> Halting Problem. >> > > You are either too stubborn or too ignorant to understand that > deciders report on what their input specifies and thus not what > you think that this input should mean. > And, if the decider is a "Halt Decider" then the meaning of there inputs is a reperesentation of a machine whose behavior the decider is supposed to decide on. PERIOD. IF H(D,D) doesn't mean the behavior of D(D), then you built D wrong, as its requirements stated it was to use the decider to decide on this input programs behavior for this input. So, it means the behavior of D(D) or you are a LIAR and nothing you have said means anything >>> >>> Through this lack of understanding feel that your assumption >>> that H is being asked about the behavior of D(D) is justified? >> >> I assume that because you call it a Halt Decider. >> >> >> I guess you have just been lying about that for all these years. >> >> I guess every time you call something a Halt Decider, I can point out >> that no it isn't, as you have stated that you machines are not meeting >> the definition of a Halt Decider. >> >>> >>>>> You either fail to understand that your attempt to answer that >>>>> question will increase your understanding or you already know >>>>> that the answer to that question proves that I am correct. >>>> >>>> No, I KNOW the question to be a Red Herring, as it actually has >>>> NOTHING to do with the problem, >>> >>> It has everything to do with a 100% fully specified complete >>> instance of the problem. >> >> Nope, You just admitted it doesn't. >> >> Halt Deciding, BY DEFINITION, is about the behavior of the program >> described by the input. > > I conclusively proved otherwise and you are simply too stubborn > or ignorant to comprehend this. YOU CAN'T "PROVE" a defintion to means something it doesn't mean That is just admitting to trying to lie. You are just proving you don't understand the basics of logic, > >> By your definiton of D(D), calling H(D,D) is supposed to be asking H >> to decide on D(D). >> > > Yes that fact that this is impossible and you don't even > understand how it could be possible does not change you > religious conviction that I must be wrong. And thus you are just admitting that you have been lying, since you said that D was built exactly to the Linz template. How do you explain it otherwise? > >> If this is not true, you have just admitted that you haven't been >> working on the halting problem proof for YEARS, and just lying about it. >> > > When I correct false assumptions that others have had > about the halting problem that does not mean that I am > not working on the halting problem. You have not "corrected a false assumption", you have just admitted to LYING about following requirements. It seems the only "False Assumption" was that we could beleive anything you asaid. > > When people finally found out that the Earth is spherical > that does not mean that they were not working on the shape > of the Earth problem when these people overturned flat Earth. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 19:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4lchu$3n4dj$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107242 |
On 6/15/2024 6:57 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 7:40 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 6:15 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 2:55 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/15/2024 1:08 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/24 1:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/2024 12:17 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/15/24 12:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is contingent upon you to show the exact steps of how H >>>>>>>>>> computes >>>>>>>>>> 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 that reaches the >>>>>>>>>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why? I don't claim it can. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> When I ask you to provide the mapping from the input >>>>>>>> to H(D,D) to each step of the behavior of D(D) and >>>>>>>> and you refuse then within Socratic questioning you >>>>>>>> have proved to not be interested in an honest dialog. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, by asking a Red Herring question, >>>>>> >>>>>> *In other words you DO NOT WANT AN HONEST DIALOGUE* >>>>> >>>>> No, YOU do not what honest dialogs, as you ask me to try to prove >>>>> something I don't claim to be do able, and I say why? >>>>> >>>> >>>> In other words you flat out do not understand that H is not >>>> being asked about the behavior of D(D). >>> >>> Then you don't understand that you just flat out admitted that your H >>> isn't a Halt Decider, and thus you have proven anything about the >>> Halting Problem. >>> >> >> You are either too stubborn or too ignorant to understand that >> deciders report on what their input specifies and thus not what >> you think that this input should mean. >> > > And, if the decider is a "Halt Decider" then the meaning of there inputs > is a reperesentation of a machine whose behavior the decider is supposed > to decide on. PERIOD. > Dogma counts for less than nothing. Bots can parrot textbooks. You must show the reasoning the enables H to see the behavior of D(D). -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web