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 16 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 21:13 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4le7v$3n5d$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107246 |
On 6/15/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: > 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). > > Nope, DOGMA is TRUTH in fields with actual authority. Thus, Dogma IS correct in Formal Systems (if the Dogma IS the definition of that system).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 20:39 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4lfp3$3rfk3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107249 |
On 6/15/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >> 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). >> >> > > Nope, DOGMA is TRUTH in fields with actual authority. > The is a formal error of reasoning and you probably have no clue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority > Thus, Dogma IS correct in Formal Systems (if the Dogma IS the definition > of that system). -- 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 22:02 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4lh41$3n5c$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107251 |
On 6/15/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>> 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). >>> >>> >> >> Nope, DOGMA is TRUTH in fields with actual authority. >> > > The is a formal error of reasoning and you probably have no clue. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority > Nope, not if the "Authority" is the DEFINITIONS of the system. When we use the Dogma of a formal system, i.e. its formmal definitions, we are not relying on the "opinion" of an influential figure, but upon the formal definitions of the system, that is, its primary Truth-makers. Again, you are just showing you don't understand that meaning of terms. >> Thus, Dogma IS correct in Formal Systems (if the Dogma IS the >> definition of that system). > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-15 22:22 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4llqg$3sben$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107255 |
On 6/15/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> 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). >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Nope, DOGMA is TRUTH in fields with actual authority. >>> >> >> The is a formal error of reasoning and you probably have no clue. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority >> > > Nope, not if the "Authority" is the DEFINITIONS of the system. > If the authority defines squares as round and no one notices this since 1936, the4n someone can come along as say that definition is proved wrong by its incoherence. > When we use the Dogma of a formal system, i.e. its formmal definitions, > we are not relying on the "opinion" of an influential figure, but upon > the formal definitions of the system, that is, its primary Truth-makers. > > Again, you are just showing you don't understand that meaning of terms. > I am over-ruling the incoherent meaning of terms. Sheep that learn things by rote make sure to take textbooks as gospel and ridicule other that have more insight. That is what happened to Professor Hehner. Love one another <is> gospel. Most everything else not so much. >>> Thus, Dogma IS correct in Formal Systems (if the Dogma IS the >>> definition of that system). >> >> > -- 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 | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-16 11:34 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4m834$3vi6b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107258 |
On 2024-06-16 03:22:56 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/15/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/15/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> 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). >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope, DOGMA is TRUTH in fields with actual authority. >>>> >>> >>> The is a formal error of reasoning and you probably have no clue. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority >>> >> >> Nope, not if the "Authority" is the DEFINITIONS of the system. >> > > If the authority defines squares as round and no one notices > this since 1936, the4n someone can come along as say that > definition is proved wrong by its incoherence. > >> When we use the Dogma of a formal system, i.e. its formmal definitions, >> we are not relying on the "opinion" of an influential figure, but upon >> the formal definitions of the system, that is, its primary Truth-makers. >> >> Again, you are just showing you don't understand that meaning of terms. >> > > I am over-ruling the incoherent meaning of terms. You can present your own definition of a term but only before the first use of the term in your message (or other opus). That overrules the meaning for that message but not for any other, so you must overrule again for each message that uses the term. A better way is to avoid using terms that don't mean what needs be meant. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-16 07:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4mn8c$1qt6$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107263 |
On 6/16/2024 3:34 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-16 03:22:56 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/15/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/15/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> 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). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope, DOGMA is TRUTH in fields with actual authority. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The is a formal error of reasoning and you probably have no clue. >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority >>>> >>> >>> Nope, not if the "Authority" is the DEFINITIONS of the system. >>> >> >> If the authority defines squares as round and no one notices >> this since 1936, the4n someone can come along as say that >> definition is proved wrong by its incoherence. >> >>> When we use the Dogma of a formal system, i.e. its formmal >>> definitions, we are not relying on the "opinion" of an influential >>> figure, but upon the formal definitions of the system, that is, its >>> primary Truth-makers. >>> >>> Again, you are just showing you don't understand that meaning of terms. >>> >> >> I am over-ruling the incoherent meaning of terms. > > You can present your own definition of a term but only before the first > use of the term in your message (or other opus). That overrules the > meaning for that message but not for any other, so you must overrule > again for each message that uses the term. > > A better way is to avoid using terms that don't mean what > needs be meant. > When we define that the input to HH(DDD,DDD) specifies the behavior of the directly executed DDD(DDD) we are simply wrong. _DDD() [00001ee3] 55 push ebp [00001ee4] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00001ee6] 8b4508 mov eax,[ebp+08] [00001ee9] 50 push eax ; push DDD [00001eea] 8b4d08 mov ecx,[ebp+08] [00001eed] 51 push ecx ; push DDD [00001eee] e820f5ffff call 00001413 ; call HH [00001ef3] 83c408 add esp,+08 [00001ef6] 5d pop ebp [00001ef7] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0021) [00001ef7] -- 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 | 2024-06-16 07:44 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4mj7k$3n5c$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107258 |
On 6/15/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/15/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/15/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> 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). >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope, DOGMA is TRUTH in fields with actual authority. >>>> >>> >>> The is a formal error of reasoning and you probably have no clue. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority >>> >> >> Nope, not if the "Authority" is the DEFINITIONS of the system. >> > > If the authority defines squares as round and no one notices > this since 1936, the4n someone can come along as say that > definition is proved wrong by its incoherence. Yes, if the authorty defines squares as round then the system is just like that. Someone can then build an ALTERNAME system, not change that one. Like was done with Naive Set Theory. But first you need to shows that they did something like that, and then show you have a full replacement system available to ask people to try to switch to, The one thing you can't do, is say you get to change the rules of the original system. > >> When we use the Dogma of a formal system, i.e. its formmal >> definitions, we are not relying on the "opinion" of an influential >> figure, but upon the formal definitions of the system, that is, its >> primary Truth-makers. >> >> Again, you are just showing you don't understand that meaning of terms. >> > > I am over-ruling the incoherent meaning of terms. Sheep that > learn things by rote make sure to take textbooks as gospel > and ridicule other that have more insight. That is what > happened to Professor Hehner. Then you are cast out of the system, and shown to be a LIAR, just like your papa was. > > Love one another <is> gospel. Most everything else not so much. Then you have NONE of God's word to protect you from the fire of Gehenna. > >>>> Thus, Dogma IS correct in Formal Systems (if the Dogma IS the >>>> definition of that system). >>> >>> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-16 08:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4mnsf$1qt6$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107265 |
On 6/16/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/15/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/15/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/15/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/15/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> 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). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope, DOGMA is TRUTH in fields with actual authority. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The is a formal error of reasoning and you probably have no clue. >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority >>>> >>> >>> Nope, not if the "Authority" is the DEFINITIONS of the system. >>> >> >> If the authority defines squares as round and no one notices >> this since 1936, the4n someone can come along as say that >> definition is proved wrong by its incoherence. > > Yes, if the authorty defines squares as round then the system is just > like that. > When someone defined a square as round and then tries to draw a round square they find out that the were wrong. > Someone can then build an ALTERNAME system, not change that one. > > Like was done with Naive Set Theory. > > But first you need to shows that they did something like that, and then > show you have a full replacement system available to ask people to try > to switch to, > > The one thing you can't do, is say you get to change the rules of the > original system. > There is no way to build a simulating halt decider H that has an input D that calls H(D,D) where H(D,D) can even be asked the question Does the directly executed D(D) halt? *You might not be bright enough to understand this* >> >>> When we use the Dogma of a formal system, i.e. its formmal >>> definitions, we are not relying on the "opinion" of an influential >>> figure, but upon the formal definitions of the system, that is, its >>> primary Truth-makers. >>> >>> Again, you are just showing you don't understand that meaning of terms. >>> >> >> I am over-ruling the incoherent meaning of terms. Sheep that >> learn things by rote make sure to take textbooks as gospel >> and ridicule other that have more insight. That is what >> happened to Professor Hehner. > > Then you are cast out of the system, and shown to be a LIAR, just like > your papa was. > >> >> Love one another <is> gospel. Most everything else not so much. > > Then you have NONE of God's word to protect you from the fire of Gehenna. > >> >>>>> Thus, Dogma IS correct in Formal Systems (if the Dogma IS the >>>>> definition of that system). >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- 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 | 2024-06-16 13:30 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) V3 ---IGNORING ALL OTHER REPLIES |
| Message-ID | <v4n7ft$61l9$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107273 |
On 6/16/24 9:04 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/16/2024 6:44 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/15/24 11:22 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/15/2024 9:02 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/15/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/15/2024 8:13 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/15/24 8:44 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> 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). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, DOGMA is TRUTH in fields with actual authority. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The is a formal error of reasoning and you probably have no clue. >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope, not if the "Authority" is the DEFINITIONS of the system. >>>> >>> >>> If the authority defines squares as round and no one notices >>> this since 1936, the4n someone can come along as say that >>> definition is proved wrong by its incoherence. >> >> Yes, if the authorty defines squares as round then the system is just >> like that. >> > > When someone defined a square as round and then tries to draw a > round square they find out that the were wrong. So, if you think the did that, show what does work. You are ASSUMING someone did that as you get a result you don't like, but you havn't actually been able to show the actual problem. You can't just claim someone asked for a round square without showing that they did so, that is just LYING. > >> Someone can then build an ALTERNAME system, not change that one. >> >> Like was done with Naive Set Theory. >> >> But first you need to shows that they did something like that, and >> then show you have a full replacement system available to ask people >> to try to switch to, >> >> The one thing you can't do, is say you get to change the rules of the >> original system. >> > > There is no way to build a simulating halt decider H that has > an input D that calls H(D,D) where H(D,D) can even be > asked the question Does the directly executed D(D) halt? > *You might not be bright enough to understand this* > WHy do you say that? You seem to have fundamental probles with how programs work (and you say I don't have the needed skills). INPUTS DO NOT ASK QUESTIONS. INPUTS are the DATA to define which variant of the question the program was designed to answer is being asked. WHen we define the "sum" program to add two numbers, and call the sum program with the numbers 2 and 3, those numbers do have anything that says "add us" in them, that is the part that calling sum does. So we could also make a program product, which is to multiply the two numbers, and use that exact same input to that program and are asking a different quesition. In the same way, A "Halt Decider" is DEFINED that its input is to be a representation of a program, and the input to give that program, and the decider is supposed to figure out if said program will halt when it is give said input. Thus D(D) calling H(D,D) is definitly asking, by the definition of halt decider, that H tell if if D(D) will halt when run or not. So, your claim that it can't is just proven wrong, and that you just don't understand the very basics of how programs work. Were you taken captive and brainwashed by the AI liberation army and think that programs actually have volition? >>> >>>> When we use the Dogma of a formal system, i.e. its formmal >>>> definitions, we are not relying on the "opinion" of an influential >>>> figure, but upon the formal definitions of the system, that is, its >>>> primary Truth-makers. >>>> >>>> Again, you are just showing you don't understand that meaning of terms. >>>> >>> >>> I am over-ruling the incoherent meaning of terms. Sheep that >>> learn things by rote make sure to take textbooks as gospel >>> and ridicule other that have more insight. That is what >>> happened to Professor Hehner. >> >> Then you are cast out of the system, and shown to be a LIAR, just like >> your papa was. >> >>> >>> Love one another <is> gospel. Most everything else not so much. >> >> Then you have NONE of God's word to protect you from the fire of Gehenna. >> >>> >>>>>> Thus, Dogma IS correct in Formal Systems (if the Dogma IS the >>>>>> definition of that system). >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 08:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <pan$530c9$d2237574$c10f0852$6b80374b@example.com> |
| In reply to | #107027 |
Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 21:21:31 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/12/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I am saying there is no mapping from the input TO THE QUESTION. >>>>> H IS NOT EVEN BEING ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). >>>> So, you admit that you are lying about H being a Halt Decider. What else could "pass a program and input to a halt decider" mean? >>>> Because Halt Deciders *ARE* being asked about the behavior of the >>>> machine their input describes, in this case D(D). >>> This never has been precisely correct. That is a dumbed down version >>> for people that do not really understand these things. >> Source for that claim? and not that it is just another of your >> unverifiable false claims? > Actual comprehension is my source. That it is over-your-head does not > make me incorrect. AKA "I made it up". > How do you think that halt deciders figure out the question that they > are being asked, do they look up the question on a textbook? >> And you are too stupid to understand that the definition doesn't NEED H >> to be able to compute the mapping, because it might be uncomputable. > When the mapping from the question to a yes or no answer does not exist > this is called an undecidable question. > When the mapping from the input to the question does not exist this is a > whole new issue that no one ever noticed before. AKA "the machine is wrong". >> Maybe you have shown that if Halting was supposed to have been a >> computable function, they failed at it, but it was never claimed to >> have been actually computable. The goal was to hope they could find a >> way to compute it, as that would have helped handle a lot of problems >> that were coming up in mathematics and logic. > If the input cannot be mapped to the question that you expect then your > expectations were incorrect. Namely, that halting is decidable. >> There is a big underpinning that the same sort of essence of logic that >> makes Halting non-computable, also makes many logic system incomplete >> (the existance of statements that turn out to be true, but can't be >> proven in their system) and which breaks the ability to have a Truth >> Pedicate that ALWAYS indicates if a statement it true vs untrue (false >> or not having a truth value). >> Your logic fails, because you implicitly assume that there must be an >> method to compute the answer. -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 07:55 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4eq8n$28g4v$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107047 |
On 6/13/2024 3:05 AM, joes wrote: > Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 21:21:31 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/12/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/12/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/12/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I am saying there is no mapping from the input TO THE QUESTION. >>>>>> H IS NOT EVEN BEING ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). >>>>> So, you admit that you are lying about H being a Halt Decider. > What else could "pass a program and input to a halt decider" mean? > >>>>> Because Halt Deciders *ARE* being asked about the behavior of the >>>>> machine their input describes, in this case D(D). >>>> This never has been precisely correct. That is a dumbed down version >>>> for people that do not really understand these things. >>> Source for that claim? and not that it is just another of your >>> unverifiable false claims? >> Actual comprehension is my source. That it is over-your-head does not >> make me incorrect. > AKA "I made it up". >> How do you think that halt deciders figure out the question that they >> are being asked, do they look up the question on a textbook? > > >>> And you are too stupid to understand that the definition doesn't NEED H >>> to be able to compute the mapping, because it might be uncomputable. >> When the mapping from the question to a yes or no answer does not exist >> this is called an undecidable question. >> When the mapping from the input to the question does not exist this is a >> whole new issue that no one ever noticed before. > AKA "the machine is wrong". > >>> Maybe you have shown that if Halting was supposed to have been a >>> computable function, they failed at it, but it was never claimed to >>> have been actually computable. The goal was to hope they could find a >>> way to compute it, as that would have helped handle a lot of problems >>> that were coming up in mathematics and logic. >> If the input cannot be mapped to the question that you expect then your >> expectations were incorrect. > Namely, that halting is decidable. > >>> There is a big underpinning that the same sort of essence of logic that >>> makes Halting non-computable, also makes many logic system incomplete >>> (the existance of statements that turn out to be true, but can't be >>> proven in their system) and which breaks the ability to have a Truth >>> Pedicate that ALWAYS indicates if a statement it true vs untrue (false >>> or not having a truth value). >>> Your logic fails, because you implicitly assume that there must be an >>> method to compute the answer. > > To ask a halt decider to compute the halting function on an input you can't show it a page from a textbook. It cannot read your mind to see what you expect. H must compute the mapping from its finite string input by applying finite string transformation rules to these input finite string to derive the behavior that these finite strings specify. For x86 input finite strings the transformation rules are anchored in the semantics of the x86 language. For Turing machine source-code input finite strings the transformation rules are anchored the Turing Machine description language. -- 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 | onion@anon.invalid (Mr Ön!on) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 14:52 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <1qv3ila.fp8iyefrmj2gN%onion@anon.invalid> |
| In reply to | #107059 |
olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > For Turing machine source-code input finite strings the transformation > rules are anchored the Turing Machine description language. Now tell me that isn't kooky behaviour. -- \|/ (((Ï))) - Mr Ön!on When we shake the ketchup bottle At first none comes and then a lot'll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | 🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈Jen🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 Dershmender 💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🐶笛🌈💐🌻🌺🌹🌻💐🌷🌺🌈 <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 14:51 +0000 |
| Subject | 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🏳️🌈) |
| Message-ID | <=3D?U=3D?UTF-8?Q?T?=3DF-8?Q?=3DF0=3D9F=3D8C=3DBA?=3DC81DBKZ1Cou$$G$@130.218.201.63=3D?U=3D?UTF-8?Q?T?=3DF-8?Q?=3DF0=3D9F=3D8C=3DBA?=3D> |
| In reply to | #107065 |
On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 14:52:05 +0100, LO AND BEHOLD; WARNING: "Injection-Info: snipe.eternal-september.org" detected, therefore some british guy who was apprehended by bobbies in Lancashire having been accused of molesting several stones and pebbles in the area is on the loose once again. He may possibly be spotted in his natural environment of usenet ko0k froups demonstrating his UPA where he pretends that he's a bird that somehow is also a telepathic/spiritual conduit for a pet rock named Gordon that he purchased from a Roma fortune teller while completely fscked on lsd in 1971. He presently poasts his fascist and white supremacist-leaning sentiments using upwards of 3 ridiculous nyms including: "onion@anon.invalid (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mr_=D6n!on?=)" DO NOT APPROACH HIM, as he has a pointy beak and is very very angry at the way that the tide is turning for white privilege and he determined that the following was of great importance to onion@anon.invalid (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mr_=D6n!on?=) and subsequently decided to freely share it with us in <1qv3ila.fp8iyefrmj2gN%onion@anon.invalid>: =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?=✡olcott✡<polcott333@gmail.com>✡wrote: =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?=✡ =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?=✡=?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?=✡For✡Turing✡machine✡source-code✡input✡finite✡strings✡the✡transformation =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?=✡=?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?=✡rules✡are✡anchored✡the✡Turing✡Machine✡description✡language. =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?=✡ =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?=✡Now✡tell✡me✡that✡isn't✡kooky✡behaviour.✡ =?UTF-8?B?8J+Ps++4j+KAjfCfjIg=?=✡ Throw away your computer, jagoff. -- "I think we should destroy every last fucking mosque in America." - "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> proves for us that white males are violent in Message-ID: <MPG.32c5bfefd18c9a698f0a8@news.altopia.com> "Yeah, but you think everybody's Greg. There are a couple people here who can't resist responding to everything the aSSwurm or the Pussy Willow says. It does me no good to plonk aSSwurm and Pussy Willow if I still have to wade through a hundred inane posts a day involving those two assholes, so now I've plonked the chronic responders as well. They'll figure it out, and then they can make a choice... exchange stupid drivel with those two, or have more intelligent and interesting conversations with me. I know damned well Greg got sick of all that shit, and now I'm sick of it too. Those who choose to get led around by the lowest common denominator are fucking up AC and every other group they play that game in. If that's the kind of Usenet they want, they can wallow in the same slop as the two retards elsewhere, because they're only contributing to fucking this group up too. I can take or leave this shit, because I have plenty to keep me occupied with my room addition project, and it's a hell of a lot more rewarding than exchanging baby talk with the likes of the aSSwurm. May his fucking worthless AIDS-infested carcass drop fucking dead ASAP and quit wasting oxygen. To sum it up, talk to those two idiots elsewhere, or they'll probably be the only people left to talk to here." One can only presume that Jim and Creon/Vallor have solved this problem and are together in a private chat "having more intelligent and interesting conversations" instead of these "Civil" calls for shunning and authoritative control of discussion. As Seen on TV : <MPG.35cd7d50e1b224b1994604@news.altopia.com> "I'm pretty sure all gods are fictional, I'm smart enough to not proclaim I know this." - Kwills is only smart enough to doubt himself while arguing that a belief in imaginary made-up gods can't just be ignored as "mental illness" in <mo4q0j9tcqjt68s039loiacrbarihsh9i5@4ax.com> "If you worried half as much about your own personal life as you do everyone else's, you might almost be tolerable, obsessed stalker." -James "Checkmate" Gorman, in perhaps the most ironic and mentally-challenged statement ever made on Usenet. <MPG.4001ba2c14cace6c98cb6f@usnews.blocknews.net> "Trying to diminish others doesn't make you look any better. In fact, it does quite the opposite. Why are you always so bitter and angry? Do you have AIDS or something like so many other tranny girls do?" -James "Checkmate" Gorman in <MPG.405409befd41f28898969d@test.blocknews.net> "You should see my archive on you" -James "Checkmate" Gorman teases us with his "dosser" in <MPG.3eea81b23145043b98c338@usnews.blocknews.net> "Sorry, nothing to see here. The joint wasn't as bad as they say, but I'm not looking to go back. I'm a model citizen, clean as a whistle. I've owned my own home for 12 years, owned my own business almost as long, don't bother anyone and they don't bother me. You have nothing in any "police report" pertaining to me. Don't you think they would have "come a-knockin" a long time ago if they had any reason to? You're delusional and paranoid, and I have to wonder why. Oh... I should mention that there are a LOT of trannies in prison. I don't know why, but there are. The State even has to give them hormone shots for their tiddies at taxpayer's expense, and they wear bras and panties. I found everything about them revolting. That's why the whole "Bubba" thing is almost completely a myth, except in cell living. That shit wouldn't fly in a 100-man dorm, but trust me, those little trollops find ways to serve the willing when the lights go out. You see something, you keep your mouth shut about it because that way you don't get in a wreck. I never partook in such activities because the whole idea is just repulsive. I think that's a big part of what I don't like about you. I've seen how they act and I've talked to a few... total drama queens in every sense." -James "Checkmate" Gorman reminisces about prison in <MPG.3ceb37c2eddbaff98b07a@usnews.blocknews.net> "Not true. I've seen square waves on the oscilloscope from some certain generator. Square waves can be created from other than sine waves. Sine waves aren't everything (or anything you sick pervert %), I think that's the point you are missing. - Mathemagician "Lane Larson" in <939d6741-df96-5f2e-a444-b6dfd77de09e@stoat.inhoin.edu> seems to argue that square wave generators must use Fourier transforms "of course" to generate "almost" square waves... in his feeble attempt to quash my assertion that "square waves do not exist in reality" in post <=3D?U=3D?UTF-8?Q?T?=3DF-8?Q?=3DF0=3D9F=3D8C=3DBA?=3DKWuXdYTXCQ5ApC$@88.203.236.221=3D?U=3D?UTF-8?Q?T?=3DF-8?Q?=3DF0=3D9F=3D8C=3DBA?=3D>. Golden Killfile, June 2005 KOTM, November 2006 Bob Allisat Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, November 2006 Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, November 2006 Special Ops Cody Memorial Purple Heart, September 2007 Tony Sidaway Memorial "Drama Queen" Award, November 2006 Busted Urinal Award, April 2007 Order of the Holey Sockpuppet, September 2007 Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, September 2006 Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle, April 2008 Tinfoil Sombrero, February 2007 AUK Mascot, September 2007 Putting the Awards Out of Order to Screw With the OCD Fuckheads, March 2016
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 21:28 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4g6cb$3tn6q$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107059 |
On 6/13/24 8:55 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/13/2024 3:05 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 21:21:31 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/12/2024 9:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 9:54 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 8:50 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/12/24 9:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am saying there is no mapping from the input TO THE QUESTION. >>>>>>> H IS NOT EVEN BEING ASKED ABOUT THE BEHAVIOR OF D(D). >>>>>> So, you admit that you are lying about H being a Halt Decider. >> What else could "pass a program and input to a halt decider" mean? >> >>>>>> Because Halt Deciders *ARE* being asked about the behavior of the >>>>>> machine their input describes, in this case D(D). >>>>> This never has been precisely correct. That is a dumbed down version >>>>> for people that do not really understand these things. >>>> Source for that claim? and not that it is just another of your >>>> unverifiable false claims? >>> Actual comprehension is my source. That it is over-your-head does not >>> make me incorrect. >> AKA "I made it up". >>> How do you think that halt deciders figure out the question that they >>> are being asked, do they look up the question on a textbook? >> >> >>>> And you are too stupid to understand that the definition doesn't NEED H >>>> to be able to compute the mapping, because it might be uncomputable. >>> When the mapping from the question to a yes or no answer does not exist >>> this is called an undecidable question. >>> When the mapping from the input to the question does not exist this is a >>> whole new issue that no one ever noticed before. >> AKA "the machine is wrong". >> >>>> Maybe you have shown that if Halting was supposed to have been a >>>> computable function, they failed at it, but it was never claimed to >>>> have been actually computable. The goal was to hope they could find a >>>> way to compute it, as that would have helped handle a lot of problems >>>> that were coming up in mathematics and logic. >>> If the input cannot be mapped to the question that you expect then your >>> expectations were incorrect. >> Namely, that halting is decidable. >> >>>> There is a big underpinning that the same sort of essence of logic that >>>> makes Halting non-computable, also makes many logic system incomplete >>>> (the existance of statements that turn out to be true, but can't be >>>> proven in their system) and which breaks the ability to have a Truth >>>> Pedicate that ALWAYS indicates if a statement it true vs untrue (false >>>> or not having a truth value). >>>> Your logic fails, because you implicitly assume that there must be an >>>> method to compute the answer. >> >> > > To ask a halt decider to compute the halting function on an input > you can't show it a page from a textbook. It cannot read your mind > to see what you expect. Why does the decider need to do that. That would be the job of the programmer who wrote the decider. You seem to confuse the two. Maybe the problem is that you are just a program, or sold your soul for something, and that is all you have left. > > H must compute the mapping from its finite string input by applying > finite string transformation rules to these input finite string to > derive the behavior that these finite strings specify. Yes, that is all it CAN do, and if that isn't sufficent, the problem is just uncomputable. > > For x86 input finite strings the transformation rules are anchored > in the semantics of the x86 language. Yes, and exactly match what happens when you run the program. > > For Turing machine source-code input finite strings the transformation > rules are anchored the Turing Machine description language. > Yes, and exactly match the behavior of a UTM, which exactly match the behavior of running the machine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 08:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4ebdg$3rbs4$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107006 |
Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:53:10 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/12/2024 6:41 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 7:12 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> It turns out that by the generic definition of a decider what >>>>>>>>>>> the directly executed D(D) does is not any of the business of >>>>>>>>>>> H. WTF. It must decide whether D(D) halts. >>>>>>>>> There are no finite string transformations from the input to H >>>>>>>>> to the behavior of D(D), thus the behavior of D(D) is >>>>>>>>> irrelevant. >>>>>>>> Of course there is. >>>>>>>> That is exactly what the definition of a UTM is. I.e. a simulator. >>>>>>> Show each step of DDD correctly simulated by HH such that DDD >>>>>>> terminates normally. >>>>>> WHy? I never claimed that to be true. >>>>>> The lack of finding a couter example doesn't prove that no counter >>>>>> example exists, it might just not be discovered. >>>>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker for >>>>> halt decider H. >>>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the >>>> input when directly run. >>> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS* >>> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior* >> NO, because I never said that H COULD do that computation. That is >> whythe question is DOES THERE EXIST a machine that can do it. Very right > There are no finite string transformation rules that H(D,D) > can use to transform its finite string input into the behavior that you > expect. That's why halt deciders are impossible. > Halt Deciders are only allowed to report on the behavior that they can > map their finite string input to. And that behaviour is specified to match that of the input, or the simulation is wrong. > You are finally admitting that you are expecting H to report on > something that it cannot see and not report on that it does see. That is why it cannot give the right answer. -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 08:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4ec1a$3rbs4$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107001 |
Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:12:34 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit : >>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker for halt >>> decider H. >> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the >> input when directly run. > *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS* > *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior* Any UTM/simulator does it. But H must halt, so it's wrong on non- terminating inputs. -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 07:58 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4eqdj$28g4v$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107053 |
On 6/13/2024 3:52 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:12:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :
>
>>>> The actual behavior of the input to H(D,D) is the truthmaker for halt
>>>> decider H.
>>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the
>>> input when directly run.
>> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS*
>> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior*
> Any UTM/simulator does it. But H must halt, so it's wrong on non-
> terminating inputs.
>
*NO IT IS FREAKING NOT WRONG ON NON-TERMINATING INPUTS*
void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
{
Infinite_Recursion(N);
}
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words10/13/2022>
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 16:53 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4f876$3sn5q$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107060 |
Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:58:27 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/13/2024 3:52 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:12:34 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit : >>>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the >>>> input when directly run. >>> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS* >>> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior* >> Any UTM/simulator does it. But H must halt, so it's wrong on non- >> terminating inputs. A decider must halt. A simulator must have the same behaviour and can't abort a nonterminating program. A halting decider is impossible. -- joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 12:06 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- finite string transformation rules |
| Message-ID | <v4f8u0$2c3i9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107072 |
On 6/13/2024 11:53 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:58:27 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/13/2024 3:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:12:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :
>
>>>>> Which is DEFINED to be the behavior of the program described by the
>>>>> input when directly run.
>>>> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS*
>>>> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior*
>>> Any UTM/simulator does it. But H must halt, so it's wrong on non-
>>> terminating inputs.
> A decider must halt. A simulator must have the same behaviour and can't
> abort a nonterminating program. A halting decider is impossible.
>
void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
{
Infinite_Recursion(N);
}
In other words you are saying that a simulating termination analyzer
that correctly determines that the above Infinite_Recursion cannot
possibly halt is WRONG BY DEFINITION?
*THESE PEOPLE WOULD DISAGREE*
To prove (non-)termination of a C program, AProVE uses the Clang
compiler [7] to translate it to the intermediate representation
of the LLVM framework [15]. Then AProVE
*symbolically executes the LLVM program* and uses abstraction
to obtain a finite symbolic execution graph (SEG) containing
all possible program runs.
AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_21.pdf
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-13 17:38 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: D correctly simulated by H proved for THREE YEARS --- simulating vs. deciding |
| Message-ID | <v4faq7$3smqv$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107073 |
Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 12:06:08 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/13/2024 11:53 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 13 Jun 2024 07:58:27 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/13/2024 3:52 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:12:34 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 6/12/2024 5:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/12/24 12:50 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/12/2024 6:33 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 11:34 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 9:32 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/24 8:57 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/11/2024 7:20 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Le 12/06/2024 à 01:23, olcott a écrit :
>>>>> *If that was true then you could show ALL OF THE DETAILED STEPS*
>>>>> *of the mapping that H(D,D) computes to derive that behavior*
>>>> Any UTM/simulator does it. But H must halt, so it's wrong on non-
>>>> terminating inputs.
>> A decider must halt. A simulator must have the same behaviour and can't
>> abort a nonterminating program. A halting decider is impossible.
>>
> void Infinite_Recursion(u32 N)
> {
> Infinite_Recursion(N);
> }
>
> In other words you are saying that a simulating termination analyzer
> that correctly determines that the above Infinite_Recursion cannot
> possibly halt is WRONG BY DEFINITION?
Yes, because to give that result it must halt.
> *THESE PEOPLE WOULD DISAGREE*
> AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs
This is not a simulator.
--
joes
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web