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 4 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 19 Next page →
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-16 07:59 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4mnim$1qt6$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107264 |
On 6/16/2024 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-15 13:24:45 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/15/2024 7:33 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-15 11:34:39 +0000, joes said: >>> >>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:39:15 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/14/2024 10:54 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:15:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> When H and D have a pathological relationship to each other then >>>>>>> H(D,D) is not being asked about the behavior of D(D). H1(D,D) has no >>>>>>> such pathological relationship thus D correctly simulated by H1 >>>>>>> is the >>>>>>> behavior of D(D). >>>> What is H1 asked? >>>>>> H is asked whether its input halts, and by definition should give the >>>>>> (right) answer for every input. >>>>> If we used that definition of decider then no human ever decided >>>>> anything because every human has made at least one mistake. >>>> Yes. Humans are not machines. >>>>> I use the term "termination analyzer" as a close fit. The term partial >>>>> halt decider is more accurate yet confuses most people. >>> >>> Olcott has used the term "termination analyzer", though whether he knows >>> what it means is unclear. >>> >> >> 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 is a particular attempt, not a defintion. > If you say: What is a duck? and I point to a duck that *is* what a duck is. *Termination analysis* In computer science, termination analysis is program analysis which attempts to determine whether the evaluation of a given program halts for each input. This means to determine whether the input program computes a total function. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis I pointed out AProVE because it is essentially a simulating halt decider with a limited domain. >> *AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs* >> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_21.pdf >> >>> The main difference is that a halt decider or partial halt decider takes >>> descriptions of both a Turing machine (or other program) and an input >>> and >>> determines whether that machine halts with that input >> >> H(D,D) is only required to get this one input correctly thus H is >> a halt decider with a domain restricted to D. > > Nevertheless, it takes both the program and its input inputs. > And both the program and its input proves that H(D,D) is not and cannot report on the behavior of the directly executed D(D). -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-17 10:10 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4onga$hjo3$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107272 |
On 2024-06-16 12:59:02 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/16/2024 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-15 13:24:45 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/15/2024 7:33 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-06-15 11:34:39 +0000, joes said: >>>> >>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:39:15 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 6/14/2024 10:54 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:15:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> When H and D have a pathological relationship to each other then >>>>>>>> H(D,D) is not being asked about the behavior of D(D). H1(D,D) has no >>>>>>>> such pathological relationship thus D correctly simulated by H1 is the >>>>>>>> behavior of D(D). >>>>> What is H1 asked? >>>>>>> H is asked whether its input halts, and by definition should give the >>>>>>> (right) answer for every input. >>>>>> If we used that definition of decider then no human ever decided >>>>>> anything because every human has made at least one mistake. >>>>> Yes. Humans are not machines. >>>>>> I use the term "termination analyzer" as a close fit. The term partial >>>>>> halt decider is more accurate yet confuses most people. >>>> >>>> Olcott has used the term "termination analyzer", though whether he knows >>>> what it means is unclear. >>>> >>> >>> 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 is a particular attempt, not a defintion. >> > > If you say: What is a duck? and I point to a duck that > *is* what a duck is. That would be just an example, not a definition. In particular, it does not tell about another being whether it can be called a "duck". > *Termination analysis* > In computer science, termination analysis is program analysis which > attempts to determine whether the evaluation of a given program halts > for each input. This means to determine whether the input program > computes a total function. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis > > I pointed out AProVE because it is essentially a simulating > halt decider with a limited domain. A difference between AProVE and a partial halt decider is that the input to AProVE is only a program but not an input to that program but the input to a partial halt decider contains both. >>> *AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs* >>> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_21.pdf -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-17 07:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4pbg4$ln46$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107302 |
On 6/17/2024 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-16 12:59:02 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/16/2024 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-15 13:24:45 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/15/2024 7:33 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-06-15 11:34:39 +0000, joes said: >>>>> >>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:39:15 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 10:54 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:15:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> When H and D have a pathological relationship to each other then >>>>>>>>> H(D,D) is not being asked about the behavior of D(D). H1(D,D) >>>>>>>>> has no >>>>>>>>> such pathological relationship thus D correctly simulated by H1 >>>>>>>>> is the >>>>>>>>> behavior of D(D). >>>>>> What is H1 asked? >>>>>>>> H is asked whether its input halts, and by definition should >>>>>>>> give the >>>>>>>> (right) answer for every input. >>>>>>> If we used that definition of decider then no human ever decided >>>>>>> anything because every human has made at least one mistake. >>>>>> Yes. Humans are not machines. >>>>>>> I use the term "termination analyzer" as a close fit. The term >>>>>>> partial >>>>>>> halt decider is more accurate yet confuses most people. >>>>> >>>>> Olcott has used the term "termination analyzer", though whether he >>>>> knows >>>>> what it means is unclear. >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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 is a particular attempt, not a defintion. >>> >> >> If you say: What is a duck? and I point to a duck that >> *is* what a duck is. > > That would be just an example, not a definition. In particular, it does > not tell about another being whether it can be called a "duck". > >> *Termination analysis* >> In computer science, termination analysis is program analysis which >> attempts to determine whether the evaluation of a given program halts >> for each input. This means to determine whether the input program >> computes a total function. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis >> >> I pointed out AProVE because it is essentially a simulating >> halt decider with a limited domain. > > A difference between AProVE and a partial halt decider is that the input > to AProVE is only a program but not an input to that program but the > input to a partial halt decider contains both. > >>>> *AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs* >>>> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_21.pdf > AProVE is a kind of simulating termination analyzer. H is a kind of simulating halt decider with a restricted domain. [Simulating termination analyzers for dummies] makes these ideas simpler. -- 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 | 2024-06-18 10:44 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4rdtp$18al3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107311 |
On 2024-06-17 12:51:15 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/17/2024 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-16 12:59:02 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/16/2024 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-06-15 13:24:45 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/15/2024 7:33 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-06-15 11:34:39 +0000, joes said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:39:15 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 10:54 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:15:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> When H and D have a pathological relationship to each other then >>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) is not being asked about the behavior of D(D). H1(D,D) has no >>>>>>>>>> such pathological relationship thus D correctly simulated by H1 is the >>>>>>>>>> behavior of D(D). >>>>>>> What is H1 asked? >>>>>>>>> H is asked whether its input halts, and by definition should give the >>>>>>>>> (right) answer for every input. >>>>>>>> If we used that definition of decider then no human ever decided >>>>>>>> anything because every human has made at least one mistake. >>>>>>> Yes. Humans are not machines. >>>>>>>> I use the term "termination analyzer" as a close fit. The term partial >>>>>>>> halt decider is more accurate yet confuses most people. >>>>>> >>>>>> Olcott has used the term "termination analyzer", though whether he knows >>>>>> what it means is unclear. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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 is a particular attempt, not a defintion. >>>> >>> >>> If you say: What is a duck? and I point to a duck that >>> *is* what a duck is. >> >> That would be just an example, not a definition. In particular, it does >> not tell about another being whether it can be called a "duck". >> >>> *Termination analysis* >>> In computer science, termination analysis is program analysis which >>> attempts to determine whether the evaluation of a given program halts >>> for each input. This means to determine whether the input program >>> computes a total function. >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis >>> >>> I pointed out AProVE because it is essentially a simulating >>> halt decider with a limited domain. >> >> A difference between AProVE and a partial halt decider is that the input >> to AProVE is only a program but not an input to that program but the >> input to a partial halt decider contains both. >> >>>>> *AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs* >>>>> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_21.pdf >> > > AProVE is a kind of simulating termination analyzer. Not really. It does not simulate. > H is a kind of simulating halt decider with a restricted domain. > [Simulating termination analyzers for dummies] makes these ideas > simpler. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-18 07:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4rvil$1boeu$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107352 |
On 6/18/2024 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-17 12:51:15 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/17/2024 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-16 12:59:02 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/16/2024 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-06-15 13:24:45 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/15/2024 7:33 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-06-15 11:34:39 +0000, joes said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:39:15 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 10:54 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:15:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> When H and D have a pathological relationship to each other then >>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) is not being asked about the behavior of D(D). H1(D,D) >>>>>>>>>>> has no >>>>>>>>>>> such pathological relationship thus D correctly simulated by >>>>>>>>>>> H1 is the >>>>>>>>>>> behavior of D(D). >>>>>>>> What is H1 asked? >>>>>>>>>> H is asked whether its input halts, and by definition should >>>>>>>>>> give the >>>>>>>>>> (right) answer for every input. >>>>>>>>> If we used that definition of decider then no human ever decided >>>>>>>>> anything because every human has made at least one mistake. >>>>>>>> Yes. Humans are not machines. >>>>>>>>> I use the term "termination analyzer" as a close fit. The term >>>>>>>>> partial >>>>>>>>> halt decider is more accurate yet confuses most people. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Olcott has used the term "termination analyzer", though whether >>>>>>> he knows >>>>>>> what it means is unclear. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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 is a particular attempt, not a defintion. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If you say: What is a duck? and I point to a duck that >>>> *is* what a duck is. >>> >>> That would be just an example, not a definition. In particular, it does >>> not tell about another being whether it can be called a "duck". >>> >>>> *Termination analysis* >>>> In computer science, termination analysis is program analysis which >>>> attempts to determine whether the evaluation of a given program halts >>>> for each input. This means to determine whether the input program >>>> computes a total function. >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis >>>> >>>> I pointed out AProVE because it is essentially a simulating >>>> halt decider with a limited domain. >>> >>> A difference between AProVE and a partial halt decider is that the input >>> to AProVE is only a program but not an input to that program but the >>> input to a partial halt decider contains both. >>> >>>>>> *AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs* >>>>>> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_21.pdf >>> >> >> AProVE is a kind of simulating termination analyzer. > > Not really. It does not simulate. > 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) >> H is a kind of simulating halt decider with a restricted domain. >> [Simulating termination analyzers for dummies] makes these ideas >> simpler. > -- 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 | 2024-06-18 18:36 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4s9hj$1dnm7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107363 |
On 2024-06-18 12:46:13 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/18/2024 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-17 12:51:15 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/17/2024 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-06-16 12:59:02 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/16/2024 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-06-15 13:24:45 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 7:33 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-06-15 11:34:39 +0000, joes said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:39:15 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 10:54 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:15:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> When H and D have a pathological relationship to each other then >>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) is not being asked about the behavior of D(D). H1(D,D) has no >>>>>>>>>>>> such pathological relationship thus D correctly simulated by H1 is the >>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of D(D). >>>>>>>>> What is H1 asked? >>>>>>>>>>> H is asked whether its input halts, and by definition should give the >>>>>>>>>>> (right) answer for every input. >>>>>>>>>> If we used that definition of decider then no human ever decided >>>>>>>>>> anything because every human has made at least one mistake. >>>>>>>>> Yes. Humans are not machines. >>>>>>>>>> I use the term "termination analyzer" as a close fit. The term partial >>>>>>>>>> halt decider is more accurate yet confuses most people. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Olcott has used the term "termination analyzer", though whether he knows >>>>>>>> what it means is unclear. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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 is a particular attempt, not a defintion. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If you say: What is a duck? and I point to a duck that >>>>> *is* what a duck is. >>>> >>>> That would be just an example, not a definition. In particular, it does >>>> not tell about another being whether it can be called a "duck". >>>> >>>>> *Termination analysis* >>>>> In computer science, termination analysis is program analysis which >>>>> attempts to determine whether the evaluation of a given program halts >>>>> for each input. This means to determine whether the input program >>>>> computes a total function. >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis >>>>> >>>>> I pointed out AProVE because it is essentially a simulating >>>>> halt decider with a limited domain. >>>> >>>> A difference between AProVE and a partial halt decider is that the input >>>> to AProVE is only a program but not an input to that program but the >>>> input to a partial halt decider contains both. >>>> >>>>>>> *AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs* >>>>>>> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_21.pdf >>>> >>> >>> AProVE is a kind of simulating termination analyzer. >> >> Not really. It does not simulate. >> > > 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* I.e., does not simulate. > and uses abstraction to obtain a finite symbolic execution graph (SEG) > >>> H is a kind of simulating halt decider with a restricted domain. >>> [Simulating termination analyzers for dummies] makes these ideas >>> simpler. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-18 10:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4sa0h$1dk9i$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107372 |
On 6/18/2024 10:36 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-18 12:46:13 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/18/2024 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-17 12:51:15 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/17/2024 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-06-16 12:59:02 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/16/2024 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-06-15 13:24:45 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 7:33 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-15 11:34:39 +0000, joes said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:39:15 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 10:54 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:15:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> When H and D have a pathological relationship to each other >>>>>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) is not being asked about the behavior of D(D). >>>>>>>>>>>>> H1(D,D) has no >>>>>>>>>>>>> such pathological relationship thus D correctly simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>> by H1 is the >>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of D(D). >>>>>>>>>> What is H1 asked? >>>>>>>>>>>> H is asked whether its input halts, and by definition should >>>>>>>>>>>> give the >>>>>>>>>>>> (right) answer for every input. >>>>>>>>>>> If we used that definition of decider then no human ever decided >>>>>>>>>>> anything because every human has made at least one mistake. >>>>>>>>>> Yes. Humans are not machines. >>>>>>>>>>> I use the term "termination analyzer" as a close fit. The >>>>>>>>>>> term partial >>>>>>>>>>> halt decider is more accurate yet confuses most people. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Olcott has used the term "termination analyzer", though whether >>>>>>>>> he knows >>>>>>>>> what it means is unclear. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 is a particular attempt, not a defintion. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If you say: What is a duck? and I point to a duck that >>>>>> *is* what a duck is. >>>>> >>>>> That would be just an example, not a definition. In particular, it >>>>> does >>>>> not tell about another being whether it can be called a "duck". >>>>> >>>>>> *Termination analysis* >>>>>> In computer science, termination analysis is program analysis which >>>>>> attempts to determine whether the evaluation of a given program halts >>>>>> for each input. This means to determine whether the input program >>>>>> computes a total function. >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis >>>>>> >>>>>> I pointed out AProVE because it is essentially a simulating >>>>>> halt decider with a limited domain. >>>>> >>>>> A difference between AProVE and a partial halt decider is that the >>>>> input >>>>> to AProVE is only a program but not an input to that program but the >>>>> input to a partial halt decider contains both. >>>>> >>>>>>>> *AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs* >>>>>>>> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_21.pdf >>>>> >>>> >>>> AProVE is a kind of simulating termination analyzer. >>> >>> Not really. It does not simulate. >>> >> >> 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* > > I.e., does not simulate. > So maybe: *symbolically executes the LLVM program* means jumping up and down yelling and screaming? AProVE does form its non-halting decision on the basis of the dynamic behavior of its input instead of any static analysis. *symbolically executes the LLVM program* means dynamic behavior and not static analysis. These AProVE people seem to be the brightest ones in the field. >> and uses abstraction to obtain a finite symbolic execution graph (SEG) >> >>>> H is a kind of simulating halt decider with a restricted domain. >>>> [Simulating termination analyzers for dummies] makes these ideas >>>> simpler. > -- 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 | 2024-06-18 19:27 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4sci6$1ebce$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107374 |
On 2024-06-18 15:44:16 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/18/2024 10:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-18 12:46:13 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/18/2024 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-06-17 12:51:15 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/17/2024 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-06-16 12:59:02 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-06-15 13:24:45 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 7:33 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-15 11:34:39 +0000, joes said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:39:15 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 10:54 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:15:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H and D have a pathological relationship to each other then >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) is not being asked about the behavior of D(D). H1(D,D) has no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> such pathological relationship thus D correctly simulated by H1 is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of D(D). >>>>>>>>>>> What is H1 asked? >>>>>>>>>>>>> H is asked whether its input halts, and by definition should give the >>>>>>>>>>>>> (right) answer for every input. >>>>>>>>>>>> If we used that definition of decider then no human ever decided >>>>>>>>>>>> anything because every human has made at least one mistake. >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Humans are not machines. >>>>>>>>>>>> I use the term "termination analyzer" as a close fit. The term partial >>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider is more accurate yet confuses most people. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Olcott has used the term "termination analyzer", though whether he knows >>>>>>>>>> what it means is unclear. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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 is a particular attempt, not a defintion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you say: What is a duck? and I point to a duck that >>>>>>> *is* what a duck is. >>>>>> >>>>>> That would be just an example, not a definition. In particular, it does >>>>>> not tell about another being whether it can be called a "duck". >>>>>> >>>>>>> *Termination analysis* >>>>>>> In computer science, termination analysis is program analysis which >>>>>>> attempts to determine whether the evaluation of a given program halts >>>>>>> for each input. This means to determine whether the input program >>>>>>> computes a total function. >>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I pointed out AProVE because it is essentially a simulating >>>>>>> halt decider with a limited domain. >>>>>> >>>>>> A difference between AProVE and a partial halt decider is that the input >>>>>> to AProVE is only a program but not an input to that program but the >>>>>> input to a partial halt decider contains both. >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs* >>>>>>>>> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_21.pdf >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> AProVE is a kind of simulating termination analyzer. >>>> >>>> Not really. It does not simulate. >>>> >>> >>> 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* >> >> I.e., does not simulate. >> > > So maybe: *symbolically executes the LLVM program* > means jumping up and down yelling and screaming? Not a bad guess but not quite right either. > AProVE does form its non-halting decision on the basis of the > dynamic behavior of its input instead of any static analysis. It is a kind of static analysis. The important diffrence is that in a simulation there would be a specific input but AProVE considers all possible inputs at the same time. > *symbolically executes the LLVM program* means dynamic behavior > and not static analysis. It does not reproduce any specific example of the dynamic behaviour. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-18 11:36 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4sd35$1eb2f$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107382 |
On 6/18/2024 11:27 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-18 15:44:16 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/18/2024 10:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-18 12:46:13 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/18/2024 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-06-17 12:51:15 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/17/2024 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-06-16 12:59:02 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-15 13:24:45 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 7:33 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-15 11:34:39 +0000, joes said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:39:15 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 10:54 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:15:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H and D have a pathological relationship to each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) is not being asked about the behavior of D(D). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H1(D,D) has no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such pathological relationship thus D correctly simulated >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> by H1 is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of D(D). >>>>>>>>>>>> What is H1 asked? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is asked whether its input halts, and by definition >>>>>>>>>>>>>> should give the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (right) answer for every input. >>>>>>>>>>>>> If we used that definition of decider then no human ever >>>>>>>>>>>>> decided >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything because every human has made at least one mistake. >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Humans are not machines. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I use the term "termination analyzer" as a close fit. The >>>>>>>>>>>>> term partial >>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider is more accurate yet confuses most people. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Olcott has used the term "termination analyzer", though >>>>>>>>>>> whether he knows >>>>>>>>>>> what it means is unclear. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 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 is a particular attempt, not a defintion. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If you say: What is a duck? and I point to a duck that >>>>>>>> *is* what a duck is. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That would be just an example, not a definition. In particular, >>>>>>> it does >>>>>>> not tell about another being whether it can be called a "duck". >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Termination analysis* >>>>>>>> In computer science, termination analysis is program analysis which >>>>>>>> attempts to determine whether the evaluation of a given program >>>>>>>> halts >>>>>>>> for each input. This means to determine whether the input program >>>>>>>> computes a total function. >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I pointed out AProVE because it is essentially a simulating >>>>>>>> halt decider with a limited domain. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A difference between AProVE and a partial halt decider is that >>>>>>> the input >>>>>>> to AProVE is only a program but not an input to that program but the >>>>>>> input to a partial halt decider contains both. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs* >>>>>>>>>> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_21.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> AProVE is a kind of simulating termination analyzer. >>>>> >>>>> Not really. It does not simulate. >>>>> >>>> >>>> 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* >>> >>> I.e., does not simulate. >>> >> >> So maybe: *symbolically executes the LLVM program* >> means jumping up and down yelling and screaming? > > Not a bad guess but not quite right either. > >> AProVE does form its non-halting decision on the basis of the >> dynamic behavior of its input instead of any static analysis. > > It is a kind of static analysis. The important diffrence is that > in a simulation there would be a specific input but AProVE considers > all possible inputs at the same time. > None-the-less it does derive the directly graph of all control flows on the basis of *symbolically executes the LLVM program* >> *symbolically executes the LLVM program* means dynamic behavior >> and not static analysis. > > It does not reproduce any specific example of the dynamic behaviour. > -- 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 | 2024-06-19 11:07 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4u3jl$1se49$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107388 |
On 2024-06-18 16:36:53 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/18/2024 11:27 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-18 15:44:16 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/18/2024 10:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-06-18 12:46:13 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/18/2024 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-06-17 12:51:15 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/17/2024 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-06-16 12:59:02 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-15 13:24:45 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 7:33 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-15 11:34:39 +0000, joes said: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:39:15 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 10:54 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:15:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H and D have a pathological relationship to each other then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) is not being asked about the behavior of D(D). H1(D,D) has no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such pathological relationship thus D correctly simulated by H1 is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of D(D). >>>>>>>>>>>>> What is H1 asked? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is asked whether its input halts, and by definition should give the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (right) answer for every input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we used that definition of decider then no human ever decided >>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything because every human has made at least one mistake. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Humans are not machines. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I use the term "termination analyzer" as a close fit. The term partial >>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider is more accurate yet confuses most people. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott has used the term "termination analyzer", though whether he knows >>>>>>>>>>>> what it means is unclear. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 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 is a particular attempt, not a defintion. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If you say: What is a duck? and I point to a duck that >>>>>>>>> *is* what a duck is. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That would be just an example, not a definition. In particular, it does >>>>>>>> not tell about another being whether it can be called a "duck". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *Termination analysis* >>>>>>>>> In computer science, termination analysis is program analysis which >>>>>>>>> attempts to determine whether the evaluation of a given program halts >>>>>>>>> for each input. This means to determine whether the input program >>>>>>>>> computes a total function. >>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I pointed out AProVE because it is essentially a simulating >>>>>>>>> halt decider with a limited domain. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> A difference between AProVE and a partial halt decider is that the input >>>>>>>> to AProVE is only a program but not an input to that program but the >>>>>>>> input to a partial halt decider contains both. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs* >>>>>>>>>>> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_21.pdf >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> AProVE is a kind of simulating termination analyzer. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not really. It does not simulate. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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* >>>> >>>> I.e., does not simulate. >>>> >>> >>> So maybe: *symbolically executes the LLVM program* >>> means jumping up and down yelling and screaming? >> >> Not a bad guess but not quite right either. >> >>> AProVE does form its non-halting decision on the basis of the >>> dynamic behavior of its input instead of any static analysis. >> >> It is a kind of static analysis. The important diffrence is that >> in a simulation there would be a specific input but AProVE considers >> all possible inputs at the same time. >> > > None-the-less it does derive the directly graph of all > control flows on the basis of > *symbolically executes the LLVM program* It is still unclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. Which doesn't matter as nobody believes you anyway. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-19 08:37 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v4umvh$1vpm0$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107413 |
On 6/19/2024 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-18 16:36:53 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/18/2024 11:27 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-18 15:44:16 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/18/2024 10:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-06-18 12:46:13 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/18/2024 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-06-17 12:51:15 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/17/2024 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-16 12:59:02 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-15 13:24:45 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 7:33 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-15 11:34:39 +0000, joes said: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:39:15 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 10:54 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:15:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H and D have a pathological relationship to each >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> other then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) is not being asked about the behavior of D(D). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H1(D,D) has no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such pathological relationship thus D correctly >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated by H1 is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of D(D). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is H1 asked? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is asked whether its input halts, and by definition >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should give the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (right) answer for every input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we used that definition of decider then no human ever >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decided >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything because every human has made at least one mistake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Humans are not machines. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I use the term "termination analyzer" as a close fit. The >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> term partial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider is more accurate yet confuses most people. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott has used the term "termination analyzer", though >>>>>>>>>>>>> whether he knows >>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means is unclear. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> 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 is a particular attempt, not a defintion. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If you say: What is a duck? and I point to a duck that >>>>>>>>>> *is* what a duck is. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That would be just an example, not a definition. In particular, >>>>>>>>> it does >>>>>>>>> not tell about another being whether it can be called a "duck". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> *Termination analysis* >>>>>>>>>> In computer science, termination analysis is program analysis >>>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>>> attempts to determine whether the evaluation of a given >>>>>>>>>> program halts >>>>>>>>>> for each input. This means to determine whether the input program >>>>>>>>>> computes a total function. >>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I pointed out AProVE because it is essentially a simulating >>>>>>>>>> halt decider with a limited domain. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> A difference between AProVE and a partial halt decider is that >>>>>>>>> the input >>>>>>>>> to AProVE is only a program but not an input to that program >>>>>>>>> but the >>>>>>>>> input to a partial halt decider contains both. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs* >>>>>>>>>>>> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_21.pdf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> AProVE is a kind of simulating termination analyzer. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not really. It does not simulate. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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* >>>>> >>>>> I.e., does not simulate. >>>>> >>>> >>>> So maybe: *symbolically executes the LLVM program* >>>> means jumping up and down yelling and screaming? >>> >>> Not a bad guess but not quite right either. >>> >>>> AProVE does form its non-halting decision on the basis of the >>>> dynamic behavior of its input instead of any static analysis. >>> >>> It is a kind of static analysis. The important diffrence is that >>> in a simulation there would be a specific input but AProVE considers >>> all possible inputs at the same time. >>> >> >> None-the-less it does derive the directly graph of all >> control flows on the basis of >> *symbolically executes the LLVM program* > > It is still unclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. > Which doesn't matter as nobody believes you anyway. > It is dishonest to dismiss my reasoning out-of-hand without finding an actual error. For my first three examples that have no input H0 is a termination analyzer. For my next example that has an input there is no existing term of the art that exactly fits besides halt decider with a limited domain or partial halt decider. This is too confusing to my software engineer reviewers. The big advantage of my software engineering reviewers is that they never deny the verified facts. They see what the code does and verify that it does meet its spec. -- 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 | 2024-06-20 08:04 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v50d8k$2e51s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107429 |
On 2024-06-19 13:37:53 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/19/2024 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-18 16:36:53 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/18/2024 11:27 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-06-18 15:44:16 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/18/2024 10:36 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-06-18 12:46:13 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/18/2024 2:44 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-06-17 12:51:15 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/17/2024 2:10 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-16 12:59:02 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/16/2024 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-15 13:24:45 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/15/2024 7:33 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2024-06-15 11:34:39 +0000, joes said: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 12:39:15 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 10:54 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 14 Jun 2024 08:15:52 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/2024 6:39 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/14/24 12:13 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:44 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:14 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 10:04 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 9:39 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/2024 8:24 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/13/24 11:32 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When H and D have a pathological relationship to each other then >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) is not being asked about the behavior of D(D). H1(D,D) has no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> such pathological relationship thus D correctly simulated by H1 is the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior of D(D). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What is H1 asked? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H is asked whether its input halts, and by definition should give the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (right) answer for every input. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If we used that definition of decider then no human ever decided >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anything because every human has made at least one mistake. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Humans are not machines. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I use the term "termination analyzer" as a close fit. The term partial >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt decider is more accurate yet confuses most people. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Olcott has used the term "termination analyzer", though whether he knows >>>>>>>>>>>>>> what it means is unclear. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 is a particular attempt, not a defintion. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If you say: What is a duck? and I point to a duck that >>>>>>>>>>> *is* what a duck is. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That would be just an example, not a definition. In particular, it does >>>>>>>>>> not tell about another being whether it can be called a "duck". >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> *Termination analysis* >>>>>>>>>>> In computer science, termination analysis is program analysis which >>>>>>>>>>> attempts to determine whether the evaluation of a given program halts >>>>>>>>>>> for each input. This means to determine whether the input program >>>>>>>>>>> computes a total function. >>>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termination_analysis >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I pointed out AProVE because it is essentially a simulating >>>>>>>>>>> halt decider with a limited domain. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> A difference between AProVE and a partial halt decider is that the input >>>>>>>>>> to AProVE is only a program but not an input to that program but the >>>>>>>>>> input to a partial halt decider contains both. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> *AProVE: Non-Termination Witnesses for C Programs* >>>>>>>>>>>>> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/978-3-030-99527-0_21.pdf >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> AProVE is a kind of simulating termination analyzer. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not really. It does not simulate. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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* >>>>>> >>>>>> I.e., does not simulate. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So maybe: *symbolically executes the LLVM program* >>>>> means jumping up and down yelling and screaming? >>>> >>>> Not a bad guess but not quite right either. >>>> >>>>> AProVE does form its non-halting decision on the basis of the >>>>> dynamic behavior of its input instead of any static analysis. >>>> >>>> It is a kind of static analysis. The important diffrence is that >>>> in a simulation there would be a specific input but AProVE considers >>>> all possible inputs at the same time. >>>> >>> >>> None-the-less it does derive the directly graph of all >>> control flows on the basis of >>> *symbolically executes the LLVM program* >> >> It is still unclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >> Which doesn't matter as nobody believes you anyway. >> > > It is dishonest to dismiss my reasoning out-of-hand without > finding an actual error. So many of your errors have been found and analyzed that one more or less makes no difference. > For my first three examples that have no input H0 is a termination > analyzer. Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. > For my next example that has an input there is no existing > term of the art that exactly fits besides halt decider with a limited > domain or partial halt decider. The latter is better. > This is too confusing to my software engineer reviewers. The cause of confusion is that you use common words in a way that is not compatible with their common meanings. If one cannot trust that you know what your words mean one cannot understand what you are trying to say. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-20 00:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v50dtp$2e5ij$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107474 |
On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-19 13:37:53 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/19/2024 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> >>> It is still unclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>> Which doesn't matter as nobody believes you anyway. >>> >> >> It is dishonest to dismiss my reasoning out-of-hand without >> finding an actual error. > > So many of your errors have been found and analyzed that one more > or less makes no difference. > False assumptions on your part do not actually count as errors on my part. >> For my first three examples that have no input H0 is a termination >> analyzer. > > Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. > I really don't care what you believe. It is not about belief. It is about correct reasoning. >> For my next example that has an input there is no existing >> term of the art that exactly fits besides halt decider with a limited >> domain or partial halt decider. > > The latter is better. > >> This is too confusing to my software engineer reviewers. > > The cause of confusion is that you use common words in a way that > is not compatible with their common meanings. I am using the term: termination analyzer exactly correctly for the first three inputs. I am targeting software engineers because they are consistently more rational. > If one cannot trust > that you know what your words mean one cannot understand what you > are trying to say. > In other words your naysayer bias is holding you back from understanding me. Bias is a systematic error. -- 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 | 2024-06-20 17:42 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v51f4t$2k8ar$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107476 |
On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. > I really don't care what you believe. > It is not about belief. > It is about correct reasoning. No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your reasoning is correct. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-20 10:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v51ge4$2kbbe$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107492 |
On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: > >>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. > >> I really don't care what you believe. >> It is not about belief. >> It is about correct reasoning. > > No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present > your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your > reasoning is correct. > I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way to people that have already made up their mind and closed it thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking for an error and finding none. If you simply leap to the false assumption that I am wrong yet fail to point out any mistake because there are no mistakes this will only convince gullible fools that also lack sufficient technical competence. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-20 16:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v51kk6$inq6$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107496 |
Am Thu, 20 Jun 2024 10:04:35 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >> >>>> Still unclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >> >>> I really don't care what you believe. >>> It is not about belief. >>> It is about correct reasoning. >> >> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present >> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >> reasoning is correct. >> > I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way to people > that have already made up their mind and closed it thus fail to trace > through each step of this reasoning looking for an error and finding > none. You cannot present wrong reasoning to people who know the literature. We found many errors. > If you simply leap to the false assumption that I am wrong yet fail to > point out any mistake because there are no mistakes this will only > convince gullible fools that also lack sufficient technical competence. That "assumption" is pretty well founded if you believe CS. The mistakes are still there even if you can't see them. There is only one gullible fool here. -- Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-20 11:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v51lbi$2kst7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107500 |
On 6/20/2024 11:16 AM, joes wrote: > Am Thu, 20 Jun 2024 10:04:35 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> >>>>> Still unclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>> >>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>> It is not about belief. >>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>> >>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present >>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>> reasoning is correct. >>> >> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way to people >> that have already made up their mind and closed it thus fail to trace >> through each step of this reasoning looking for an error and finding >> none. > You cannot present wrong reasoning to people who know the literature. > We found many errors. > All the "errors" that have been pointed out are mere dogmatic assertions that state that my conclusion is inconsistent with the conclusions stated in textbooks. The only other "errors" that were pointed out flatly disagree with verified facts. _DDD() [00002093] 55 push ebp [00002094] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00002096] 6893200000 push 00002093 ; push DDD [0000209b] e853f4ffff call 000014f3 ; call HH0 [000020a0] 83c404 add esp,+04 [000020a3] 5d pop ebp [000020a4] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4] No DDD correctly emulated by any HH0 can possibly reach past its own machine address [0000209b] according to the actual semantics of the x86 language. Every "rebuttal" of this was either a lie or a lack of comprehension of the semantics of the x86 language. Saying that I am wrong knowing that oneself does not know the semantics of the x86 language is itself a lie. >> If you simply leap to the false assumption that I am wrong yet fail to >> point out any mistake because there are no mistakes this will only >> convince gullible fools that also lack sufficient technical competence. > That "assumption" is pretty well founded if you believe CS. The mistakes > are still there even if you can't see them. There is only one gullible > fool here. > -- 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 | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 10:05 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v53c8c$324b5$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107501 |
Op 20.jun.2024 om 18:28 schreef olcott: > On 6/20/2024 11:16 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Thu, 20 Jun 2024 10:04:35 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Still unclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>>> >>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>> >>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present >>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>> reasoning is correct. >>>> >>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way to people >>> that have already made up their mind and closed it thus fail to trace >>> through each step of this reasoning looking for an error and finding >>> none. > >> You cannot present wrong reasoning to people who know the literature. >> We found many errors. >> > > All the "errors" that have been pointed out are mere > dogmatic assertions that state that my conclusion is > inconsistent with the conclusions stated in textbooks. > > The only other "errors" that were pointed out flatly > disagree with verified facts. > No one ever verified these facts. We know that in your language 'verified facts' means 'my wishes'. Many errors were pointed out to you, but you prefer to ignore them, probably because your prejudice has already made up your mind that they must be wrong, so you did not bother to think about them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 08:13 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v53u9n$35vak$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107532 |
On 6/21/2024 3:05 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 20.jun.2024 om 18:28 schreef olcott: >> On 6/20/2024 11:16 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Thu, 20 Jun 2024 10:04:35 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Still unclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>>>> >>>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>>> >>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present >>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>>> reasoning is correct. >>>>> >>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way to people >>>> that have already made up their mind and closed it thus fail to trace >>>> through each step of this reasoning looking for an error and finding >>>> none. >> >>> You cannot present wrong reasoning to people who know the literature. >>> We found many errors. >>> >> >> All the "errors" that have been pointed out are mere >> dogmatic assertions that state that my conclusion is >> inconsistent with the conclusions stated in textbooks. >> >> The only other "errors" that were pointed out flatly >> disagree with verified facts. >> > > No one ever verified these facts. We know that in your language > 'verified facts' means 'my wishes'. On 6/20/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/20/24 10:12 AM, olcott wrote: >> >> It also looks like you fail to comprehend that it is possible >> for a simulating termination analyzer to recognize inputs that >> would never terminate by recognizing the repeating state of >> these inputs after a finite number of steps of correct simulation. > > Right, but they don't do it by "Correctly Simulating" the > input, but by a PARTIAL simulation that provides the needed > information to prove that an ACTUAL CORRECT (and complete) > simulation of that input would not halt. > > Many errors were pointed out to you, but you prefer to ignore them, > probably because your prejudice has already made up your mind that they > must be wrong, so you did not bother to think about them. -- 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 | 2024-06-21 10:27 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v542jm$lkkb$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107535 |
On 6/21/24 9:13 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2024 3:05 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 20.jun.2024 om 18:28 schreef olcott: >>> On 6/20/2024 11:16 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Thu, 20 Jun 2024 10:04:35 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Still unclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot >>>>>> present >>>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>>>> reasoning is correct. >>>>>> >>>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way to people >>>>> that have already made up their mind and closed it thus fail to trace >>>>> through each step of this reasoning looking for an error and finding >>>>> none. >>> >>>> You cannot present wrong reasoning to people who know the literature. >>>> We found many errors. >>>> >>> >>> All the "errors" that have been pointed out are mere >>> dogmatic assertions that state that my conclusion is >>> inconsistent with the conclusions stated in textbooks. >>> >>> The only other "errors" that were pointed out flatly >>> disagree with verified facts. >>> >> >> No one ever verified these facts. We know that in your language >> 'verified facts' means 'my wishes'. > > On 6/20/2024 5:37 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > > On 6/20/24 10:12 AM, olcott wrote: > >> > >> It also looks like you fail to comprehend that it is possible > >> for a simulating termination analyzer to recognize inputs that > >> would never terminate by recognizing the repeating state of > >> these inputs after a finite number of steps of correct simulation. > > > > Right, but they don't do it by "Correctly Simulating" the > > input, but by a PARTIAL simulation that provides the needed > > information to prove that an ACTUAL CORRECT (and complete) > > simulation of that input would not halt. > > Which just shos your logic is based on lies and misinterpreting things. Yes, a decider can sometimes correctly detect that a non-halting machine is non-halting by a partial simulation, and then logic showing that the actual correct simulation would go on forever. But, as normal, your logic reverses things and gets wrongs answers. The fact that no H can simulate the instance of a template based on its self to a final state doesn't show that any of the instances are non-halting. ALL of those instances, when the decider does decide to abort its simulation (and thus it doesn't do a simulation that correctly reveals the behavior of the machine by itself) when simulated by an actual correct simulator, will reach an end. This shows that your decide was NEVER able to CORRECTLY determine that its particular input was non-halting, and that its correct simulation would never reach an end, unless of course, your logic allows you to "Correctly Determine" a wrong answer, as it seems yours does, which just means it has totally blown its self up into smitherines of contradicitions. > >> Many errors were pointed out to you, but you prefer to ignore them, >> probably because your prejudice has already made up your mind that >> they must be wrong, so you did not bother to think about them. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web