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 5 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 19 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-20 21:55 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v52mil$jund$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107496 |
On 6/20/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote: > 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. BNo, we are open to new ideas that have an actual factual > > 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. > We don't leap from false assumption, we start with DEFINTIONS. YOU seem to leap to the false assumption that you can just change the definitions, which you can not. When your statement are base on false definitions, that you refuse to see are wrong, you are just stuck in your lies, and think the world is against you, when what is against you is TRUTH, because your world is just built on LIES.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-20 21:04 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v52n3h$2v5s6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107517 |
On 6/20/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/20/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> >>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>> >>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>> It is not about belief. >>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>> >>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present >>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>> reasoning is correct. >>> >> >> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way >> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it >> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking >> for an error and finding none. > > BNo, we are open to new ideas that have an actual factual > >> >> If you simply leap to the false assumption that I am wrong >> yet fail to point out any mistake because there are no mistakes >> this will only convince gullible fools that also lack sufficient >> technical competence. >> > > We don't leap from false assumption, we start with DEFINTIONS. > When it is defined that H(D,D) must report on the behavior of D(D) yet the finite string D cannot be mapped to the behavior of D(D) then the definition is wrong. *You seem to think that textbooks are the word of God* -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-20 22:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v52p32$jund$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107518 |
On 6/20/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/20/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>> 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. >> >> BNo, we are open to new ideas that have an actual factual >> >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> We don't leap from false assumption, we start with DEFINTIONS. >> > > When it is defined that H(D,D) must report on the behavior > of D(D) yet the finite string D cannot be mapped to the > behavior of D(D) then the definition is wrong. > > *You seem to think that textbooks are the word of God* > Why do you say it can not be "mapped" Of course it can be mapped by the definition of mapping that decider are supposed to use, as (D,D) -> Halting Is a perfectly valid mapping. Your problem is you keep on trying to LIE by trying to change the meaning of the words, probalby because you just don't understand the actual meaning because you have forced yourself to be stupid about them by not actually studing them. YOU are not "God" either, but the textbooks do quote the "words of 'God'" in the sense that the creators of the fields are the 'Gods' of the field that define what things in the field mean. And, when you defy the words of 'God', you get cast out of 'heaven', which here means you logic just fails to be applicable. If you want, you can create your own field and be the 'God' of it, but then you need to convince people to come to your world. The 'faithful' of the existing system, who know the actual meaning of the words, will be there to expose your lies when you try to convince people that your world is just like the actual one that people know. So, all you are doing is publicly admitting that you are defying the authorative definitioin of things in the system, because you just don't like them. And, just ike the ACTUAL GOD of this universe, who created it and everything in it, decides what the rules are, and if you choose to not believe him, will cast you out at the time of judging, when you refuse the rules of the field of logic, you find yourself cast out the them, with nothing to stand on.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-20 21:46 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v52pht$2vh9u$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107520 |
On 6/20/2024 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/20/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/20/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>> 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. >>> >>> BNo, we are open to new ideas that have an actual factual >>> >>>> >>>> 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. >>>> >>> >>> We don't leap from false assumption, we start with DEFINTIONS. >>> >> >> When it is defined that H(D,D) must report on the behavior >> of D(D) yet the finite string D cannot be mapped to the >> behavior of D(D) then the definition is wrong. >> >> *You seem to think that textbooks are the word of God* >> > > > Why do you say it can not be "mapped" > > Of course it can be mapped by the definition of mapping that decider are > supposed to use, as > You need to show every single freaking step of exactly DDD correctly emulated by HH0 reaches past its own machine address [0000209b] or all you have is BULLSHIT! _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] Maybe I need to make that my boilerplate reply to everything that you ever say about anything until you admit that you are wrong. -- 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 | 2024-06-20 22:59 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v52qat$jund$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107522 |
On 6/20/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2024 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/20/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/20/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> BNo, we are open to new ideas that have an actual factual >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> We don't leap from false assumption, we start with DEFINTIONS. >>>> >>> >>> When it is defined that H(D,D) must report on the behavior >>> of D(D) yet the finite string D cannot be mapped to the >>> behavior of D(D) then the definition is wrong. >>> >>> *You seem to think that textbooks are the word of God* >>> >> >> >> Why do you say it can not be "mapped" >> >> Of course it can be mapped by the definition of mapping that decider >> are supposed to use, as >> > > You need to show every single freaking step of exactly > DDD correctly emulated by HH0 reaches past its own > machine address [0000209b] or all you have is BULLSHIT! No, all *YOU* have is BULL-POOP in your head, as NOWHERE, but in your POOP-filled brain, is there any requirement that the mapping is defined by the steps of the decider. You just have the problem BACKWARDS, like most of your logic. The question is CAN you build a decider to generate the defined mapping. No one is interested in the question of can you build a finite machine to compute the mapping that is generated by known finite steps. Of course, for a logical-kindergartner like you maybe that would be a worth-will project to learn what computations are. The halting mapping is determined by the DIRECT EXECUTION, as that is the DEFINITION. To claim otherwise, just shows you to be a heretical LIAR, that has been cast out into the hell of illogical. > > _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] > > Maybe I need to make that my boilerplate reply to > everything that you ever say about anything until > you admit that you are wrong. > And just prove that you don't understand what you are talking about? Of course, you have spent the last 20 years proving that. I am sure tht a special room is being prepared for you to have you go over and over and over your own circular arguments for eternity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-20 22:30 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v52s4l$2vlma$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107523 |
On 6/20/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/20/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2024 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/20/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> 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. >>>>> >>>>> BNo, we are open to new ideas that have an actual factual >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> We don't leap from false assumption, we start with DEFINTIONS. >>>>> >>>> >>>> When it is defined that H(D,D) must report on the behavior >>>> of D(D) yet the finite string D cannot be mapped to the >>>> behavior of D(D) then the definition is wrong. >>>> >>>> *You seem to think that textbooks are the word of God* >>>> >>> >>> >>> Why do you say it can not be "mapped" >>> >>> Of course it can be mapped by the definition of mapping that decider >>> are supposed to use, as >>> >> >> You need to show every single freaking step of exactly >> DDD correctly emulated by HH0 reaches past its own >> machine address [0000209b] or all you have is BULLSHIT! > > > No, all *YOU* have is BULL-POOP in your head, as NOWHERE, but in your > POOP-filled brain, is there any requirement that the mapping is defined > by the steps of the decider. You just have the problem BACKWARDS, like > most of your logic. > _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] There is no mapping to the behavior of DDD correctly emulated by any x86 emulator based decider that can possibly exist to the behavior of DDD that reaches past its own machine address [0000209b] *you have always know this and lied about it* *I truly hope you repent. I don't want you to be condemned to Hell* -- 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 | 2024-06-20 23:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v52td1$june$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107524 |
On 6/20/24 11:30 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/20/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2024 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/20/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> >>>>>> BNo, we are open to new ideas that have an actual factual >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We don't leap from false assumption, we start with DEFINTIONS. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> When it is defined that H(D,D) must report on the behavior >>>>> of D(D) yet the finite string D cannot be mapped to the >>>>> behavior of D(D) then the definition is wrong. >>>>> >>>>> *You seem to think that textbooks are the word of God* >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Why do you say it can not be "mapped" >>>> >>>> Of course it can be mapped by the definition of mapping that decider >>>> are supposed to use, as >>>> >>> >>> You need to show every single freaking step of exactly >>> DDD correctly emulated by HH0 reaches past its own >>> machine address [0000209b] or all you have is BULLSHIT! >> >> >> No, all *YOU* have is BULL-POOP in your head, as NOWHERE, but in your >> POOP-filled brain, is there any requirement that the mapping is >> defined by the steps of the decider. You just have the problem >> BACKWARDS, like most of your logic. >> > > _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] > > There is no mapping to the behavior of DDD correctly emulated > by any x86 emulator based decider that can possibly exist to > the behavior of DDD that reaches past its own machine address > [0000209b] *you have always know this and lied about it* > > *I truly hope you repent. I don't want you to be condemned to Hell* > It doesn't need to be simulated by the decider! You are just trying to assume the conclusion. You are just showing that you believe in strawman and lies. You have been cast out of the realms of logic into the hell of your own lies, which you can not see because you have brainwashed yourself. The DEFINITION of the question, is does the direct execution of the machine represented by the input halt. ANY CLAIMS OTHERWISE just proves you are a LIAR, which you have very conclusively proved. Thus, you have shown you have built a perfect Rev 21 trap for yourself, all signed, sealed ans just waiting for your soon to come delivery, unless you figure how to cancel your ticket.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-20 23:01 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v52tul$307ee$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107525 |
On 6/20/2024 10:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/20/24 11:30 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/20/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/20/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/20/2024 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> BNo, we are open to new ideas that have an actual factual >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We don't leap from false assumption, we start with DEFINTIONS. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> When it is defined that H(D,D) must report on the behavior >>>>>> of D(D) yet the finite string D cannot be mapped to the >>>>>> behavior of D(D) then the definition is wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> *You seem to think that textbooks are the word of God* >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why do you say it can not be "mapped" >>>>> >>>>> Of course it can be mapped by the definition of mapping that >>>>> decider are supposed to use, as >>>>> >>>> >>>> You need to show every single freaking step of exactly >>>> DDD correctly emulated by HH0 reaches past its own >>>> machine address [0000209b] or all you have is BULLSHIT! >>> >>> >>> No, all *YOU* have is BULL-POOP in your head, as NOWHERE, but in your >>> POOP-filled brain, is there any requirement that the mapping is >>> defined by the steps of the decider. You just have the problem >>> BACKWARDS, like most of your logic. >>> >> >> _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] >> >> There is no mapping to the behavior of DDD correctly emulated >> by any x86 emulator based decider that can possibly exist to >> the behavior of DDD that reaches past its own machine address >> [0000209b] *you have always know this and lied about it* >> >> *I truly hope you repent. I don't want you to be condemned to Hell* >> > > It doesn't need to be simulated by the decider! > That is the only definitive way to determine the actual behavior that the finite string specifies. -- 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 10:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v5435h$lkkb$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107526 |
On 6/21/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/20/2024 10:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/20/24 11:30 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/20/2024 9:59 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/20/24 10:46 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/20/2024 9:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/20/24 10:04 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 8:55 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/20/24 11:04 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> BNo, we are open to new ideas that have an actual factual >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We don't leap from false assumption, we start with DEFINTIONS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When it is defined that H(D,D) must report on the behavior >>>>>>> of D(D) yet the finite string D cannot be mapped to the >>>>>>> behavior of D(D) then the definition is wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *You seem to think that textbooks are the word of God* >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why do you say it can not be "mapped" >>>>>> >>>>>> Of course it can be mapped by the definition of mapping that >>>>>> decider are supposed to use, as >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You need to show every single freaking step of exactly >>>>> DDD correctly emulated by HH0 reaches past its own >>>>> machine address [0000209b] or all you have is BULLSHIT! >>>> >>>> >>>> No, all *YOU* have is BULL-POOP in your head, as NOWHERE, but in >>>> your POOP-filled brain, is there any requirement that the mapping is >>>> defined by the steps of the decider. You just have the problem >>>> BACKWARDS, like most of your logic. >>>> >>> >>> _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] >>> >>> There is no mapping to the behavior of DDD correctly emulated >>> by any x86 emulator based decider that can possibly exist to >>> the behavior of DDD that reaches past its own machine address >>> [0000209b] *you have always know this and lied about it* >>> >>> *I truly hope you repent. I don't want you to be condemned to Hell* >>> >> >> It doesn't need to be simulated by the decider! >> > > That is the only definitive way to determine the > actual behavior that the finite string specifies. > It is the only was to COMPUTE the actual behavior, but to DETERMINE it doesn't need that. Your problem is you don't have the right definition of TRUTH, so none of your logic works. Remember, Truth can be established by an infinite number of steps in the system. We can determine it is true, if we find a meta-system for that system which allows an induction or similar operation that allows us to convert that infinte chain in the system to something finite. Thus, for DDD, we can use logic that says that *IF* HH0(DDD) returns an answer, then DDD *WILL* halt. So, HH0(DDD) returning 0 can not be correct. In system, with a specific definition of HH0, we can prove this in a finite number of steps by just running the execution of DDD, and stepping though every step of HH0 simulating the input it was given, and then eventually giving up and returning to DDD and halting. In a meta-system, we can argue about ALL HH0's with different classes of results, and prove more general cases. So, no it isn't the only difinitive way to determine the actual behavior (that is the simulation of DDD by HH0), we can simulate that DDD using a particular HH0 with a real correct simulator and get the behavior, Remember, only PROGRAMS have this sort of behavior, and thus the HH0 that DDD is tied to is part of the definition of DDD when we ask about its halting behavior,
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 11:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v54bcf$38n2k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107545 |
On 6/21/2024 9:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/21/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote: _DDD() [00002093] 55 push ebp [00002094] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00002096] 6893200000 push 00002093 ; push DDD [0000209b] e853f4ffff call 000014f3 ; call HH0 [000020a0] 83c404 add esp,+04 [000020a3] 5d pop ebp [000020a4] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4] >> >> That is the only definitive way to determine the >> actual behavior that the finite string specifies. >> > > It is the only was to COMPUTE the actual behavior, but to DETERMINE it > doesn't need that. > Ah so you expect that HH0 must use its intuition to determine that behavior that it is supposed to report on. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 13:06 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v54buj$lkkc$4@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107550 |
On 6/21/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2024 9:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/21/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote: > > > _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] > >>> >>> That is the only definitive way to determine the >>> actual behavior that the finite string specifies. >>> >> >> It is the only was to COMPUTE the actual behavior, but to DETERMINE it >> doesn't need that. >> > > Ah so you expect that HH0 must use its intuition to > determine that behavior that it is supposed to report on. > Nope, if it exists, it needs to compute the answer. But, it doesn't need to exist as a correct decider for halting. That is part of your problem, you think that all problems need to be computable, but it is proven that they can not be by simple counting. Thus, we KNOW that some problems that can be properly thought of as mappings are not computable, so, the fact that Halting is one of them is not a problem. Remember, problems in Computation Theory are about CAN we build a machine to compute a given mapping, so forming a question about an uncomputable mapping isn't an "invalid" question, but just a question for which the computablity question is NO. So, all your arguments about the Halting Question not being answerable by a computation are just proving the Halting Theorem, that the Halting Function is uncomputable, and not that the Halting Question is "Invalid" for some reason. Every proper input (the representation of an actual Machine) has a correct answer, as defined by the behavior of the machine the input represents, but there just doesn't exist a machine that can compute the answer, and trying to redefine the criteria to be a computable one just shows that you don't understand that basic concept of the field. Perhaps because it just breaks your fundamental (and wrong) idea that all Truth must be knowable/provable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 12:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v54cia$38n2k$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107552 |
On 6/21/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/21/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/21/2024 9:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/21/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote: >> >> >> _DDD() >> [00002093] 55 push ebp >> [00002094] 8bec mov ebp,esp >> [00002096] 6893200000 push 00002093 ; push DDD >> [0000209b] e853f4ffff call 000014f3 ; call HH0 >> [000020a0] 83c404 add esp,+04 >> [000020a3] 5d pop ebp >> [000020a4] c3 ret >> Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4] >> >>>> >>>> That is the only definitive way to determine the >>>> actual behavior that the finite string specifies. >>>> >>> >>> It is the only was to COMPUTE the actual behavior, but to DETERMINE >>> it doesn't need that. >>> >> >> Ah so you expect that HH0 must use its intuition to >> determine that behavior that it is supposed to report on. >> > > > Nope, if it exists, it needs to compute the answer. But, it doesn't need > to exist as a correct decider for halting. > If H(D,D) cannot apply finite string transformation rules to its input finite string of x86 machine language of D to derive the behavior of D(D) then H cannot even be asked the question: Does D(D) halt? H(D,D) is being asked the question: Must your correct simulation of D be aborted to prevent your own non-termination? It answers that question correctly. All undecidable decision problems make this same sort of mistake. Incorrect yes/no questions have no correct yes/no answer. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 13:26 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v54d41$lkkc$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107554 |
On 6/21/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/21/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/21/2024 9:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/21/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote: >>> >>> >>> _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] >>> >>>>> >>>>> That is the only definitive way to determine the >>>>> actual behavior that the finite string specifies. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It is the only was to COMPUTE the actual behavior, but to DETERMINE >>>> it doesn't need that. >>>> >>> >>> Ah so you expect that HH0 must use its intuition to >>> determine that behavior that it is supposed to report on. >>> >> >> >> Nope, if it exists, it needs to compute the answer. But, it doesn't >> need to exist as a correct decider for halting. >> > > If H(D,D) cannot apply finite string transformation rules > to its input finite string of x86 machine language of D to > derive the behavior of D(D) then H cannot even be asked > the question: Does D(D) halt? You are just showing your STUPDIITY and IGNRNCE of the topic. There is NOTHING about the definition of a quesiton of a mapping that we can ask a decider to try to compute that says the mapping must be computable. > > H(D,D) is being asked the question: > Must your correct simulation of D be aborted to prevent > your own non-termination? Nope, it is being asked if the machine represented by its input will Halt when run. You CLEARLY don't understand the nature of the problem, and are going back to your pathological lying. > > It answers that question correctly. So, it is a correct POOP decider, but not a Halt Decide, so you are just lying about that. > > All undecidable decision problems make this same sort of mistake. > Incorrect yes/no questions have no correct yes/no answer. > Nope, YOU make that sort of mistake, becase you are just an ignorant pathological liar. Try to show a reputable sourse that supports your claim. I suspect you are going to end up having a lot of time to review your errors.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 12:38 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v54dqe$394bf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107556 |
On 6/21/2024 12:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/21/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/21/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/21/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2024 9:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _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]
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the only definitive way to determine the
>>>>>> actual behavior that the finite string specifies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It is the only was to COMPUTE the actual behavior, but to DETERMINE
>>>>> it doesn't need that.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ah so you expect that HH0 must use its intuition to
>>>> determine that behavior that it is supposed to report on.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope, if it exists, it needs to compute the answer. But, it doesn't
>>> need to exist as a correct decider for halting.
>>>
>>
>> If H(D,D) cannot apply finite string transformation rules
>> to its input finite string of x86 machine language of D to
>> derive the behavior of D(D) then H cannot even be asked
>> the question: Does D(D) halt?
>
> You are just showing your STUPDIITY and IGNRNCE of the topic.
>
> There is NOTHING about the definition of a quesiton of a mapping that we
> can ask a decider to try to compute that says the mapping must be
> computable.
>
You are the one being stupid here, yet you can't help it.
That you don't understand the details of how deciders
are asked questions is significant ignorance on your part.
You keep implicitly presuming the deciders can read computer
science textbooks.
int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
Can map (3,4) to 7.
Cannot map(3,4) to 37.
H(D,D) can map D correctly simulated by H to recursive simulation.
H(D,D) cannot map D correctly simulated by H to termination.
--
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 13:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v54eko$lkkb$7@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107557 |
On 6/21/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/21/2024 12:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/21/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 9:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _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]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is the only definitive way to determine the
>>>>>>> actual behavior that the finite string specifies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is the only was to COMPUTE the actual behavior, but to
>>>>>> DETERMINE it doesn't need that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ah so you expect that HH0 must use its intuition to
>>>>> determine that behavior that it is supposed to report on.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Nope, if it exists, it needs to compute the answer. But, it doesn't
>>>> need to exist as a correct decider for halting.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If H(D,D) cannot apply finite string transformation rules
>>> to its input finite string of x86 machine language of D to
>>> derive the behavior of D(D) then H cannot even be asked
>>> the question: Does D(D) halt?
>>
>> You are just showing your STUPDIITY and IGNRNCE of the topic.
>>
>> There is NOTHING about the definition of a quesiton of a mapping that
>> we can ask a decider to try to compute that says the mapping must be
>> computable.
>>
> You are the one being stupid here, yet you can't help it.
>
> That you don't understand the details of how deciders
> are asked questions is significant ignorance on your part.
Deciders are asked questions by the problem they are desi
>
> You keep implicitly presuming the deciders can read computer
> science textbooks.
And you keep on thinking that programs write themselves.
The PROGRAMMER of the decider needs to understand the problem, and then
design the program to give the right answer.
Remember, programs are just deterministic tool that do exactly as they
are programmed, they have NO understanding of what they do. it is the
PROGRAMMER that created them (or assigned a given program to a task)
that needs to understand what is needed an make sure the right program
is assinged to the task.
So, one of your fundamental issues is you don't understand what a
program actually is.
>
> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
> Can map (3,4) to 7.
> Cannot map(3,4) to 37.
>
> H(D,D) can map D correctly simulated by H to recursive simulation.
> H(D,D) cannot map D correctly simulated by H to termination.
>
But is SUPPOSED to map the input by the Halting function Halts(D,D)
which answers by looking at the behavior of the machine D(D).
Your H answers the wrong questions, just as a "sum" problem that had the
code:
int sum(int x, int y) { return x * y; }
It uses the same input, but computes the wrong mapping. It isn't the
programs fault, it just did as it was programmed, but it was the
programmers fault for not understanding the requirements.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 13:18 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v54g5b$394bf$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107559 |
On 6/21/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/21/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/21/2024 12:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/21/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/21/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/2024 9:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _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] >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That is the only definitive way to determine the >>>>>>>> actual behavior that the finite string specifies. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is the only was to COMPUTE the actual behavior, but to >>>>>>> DETERMINE it doesn't need that. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Ah so you expect that HH0 must use its intuition to >>>>>> determine that behavior that it is supposed to report on. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope, if it exists, it needs to compute the answer. But, it doesn't >>>>> need to exist as a correct decider for halting. >>>>> >>>> >>>> If H(D,D) cannot apply finite string transformation rules >>>> to its input finite string of x86 machine language of D to >>>> derive the behavior of D(D) then H cannot even be asked >>>> the question: Does D(D) halt? >>> >>> You are just showing your STUPDIITY and IGNRNCE of the topic. >>> >>> There is NOTHING about the definition of a quesiton of a mapping that >>> we can ask a decider to try to compute that says the mapping must be >>> computable. >>> >> You are the one being stupid here, yet you can't help it. >> >> That you don't understand the details of how deciders >> are asked questions is significant ignorance on your part. > > Deciders are asked questions by the problem they are desi > >> >> You keep implicitly presuming the deciders can read computer >> science textbooks. > > And you keep on thinking that programs write themselves. > > The PROGRAMMER of the decider needs to understand the problem, and then > design the program to give the right answer. Yet the program must compute the mapping from the input to the behavior that the program is intended to report on or it cannot even be asked the question. This is a very difficult brand new issue that no one has ever noticed before because they consistently rejected the notion of a simulating halt decider out-of-hand without any review. -- 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 14:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v54hhp$lkkb$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107562 |
On 6/21/24 2:18 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/21/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/21/2024 12:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/21/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 9:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That is the only definitive way to determine the >>>>>>>>> actual behavior that the finite string specifies. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is the only was to COMPUTE the actual behavior, but to >>>>>>>> DETERMINE it doesn't need that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ah so you expect that HH0 must use its intuition to >>>>>>> determine that behavior that it is supposed to report on. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Nope, if it exists, it needs to compute the answer. But, it >>>>>> doesn't need to exist as a correct decider for halting. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> If H(D,D) cannot apply finite string transformation rules >>>>> to its input finite string of x86 machine language of D to >>>>> derive the behavior of D(D) then H cannot even be asked >>>>> the question: Does D(D) halt? >>>> >>>> You are just showing your STUPDIITY and IGNRNCE of the topic. >>>> >>>> There is NOTHING about the definition of a quesiton of a mapping >>>> that we can ask a decider to try to compute that says the mapping >>>> must be computable. >>>> >>> You are the one being stupid here, yet you can't help it. >>> >>> That you don't understand the details of how deciders >>> are asked questions is significant ignorance on your part. >> >> Deciders are asked questions by the problem they are desi >> >>> >>> You keep implicitly presuming the deciders can read computer >>> science textbooks. >> >> And you keep on thinking that programs write themselves. >> >> The PROGRAMMER of the decider needs to understand the problem, and >> then design the program to give the right answer. > > Yet the program must compute the mapping from the > input to the behavior that the program is intended > to report on or it cannot even be asked the question. Sounds about right for you logic, the program can't be wrong, as it defines the question that it is answering. That isn't how it works, and you are just shown to be a stupid lying idiot. Your "Halt Deciders" just are not Correct Halt Deciders, and you are LIAR for saying they are, PERIOD. > > This is a very difficult brand new issue that no one has > ever noticed before because they consistently rejected > the notion of a simulating halt decider out-of-hand without > any review. > Nope, you logic is just incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 13:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v54i77$39s3a$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107565 |
On 6/21/2024 1:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/21/24 2:18 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/21/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/21/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/21/2024 12:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 9:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That is the only definitive way to determine the >>>>>>>>>> actual behavior that the finite string specifies. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is the only was to COMPUTE the actual behavior, but to >>>>>>>>> DETERMINE it doesn't need that. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ah so you expect that HH0 must use its intuition to >>>>>>>> determine that behavior that it is supposed to report on. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nope, if it exists, it needs to compute the answer. But, it >>>>>>> doesn't need to exist as a correct decider for halting. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> If H(D,D) cannot apply finite string transformation rules >>>>>> to its input finite string of x86 machine language of D to >>>>>> derive the behavior of D(D) then H cannot even be asked >>>>>> the question: Does D(D) halt? >>>>> >>>>> You are just showing your STUPDIITY and IGNRNCE of the topic. >>>>> >>>>> There is NOTHING about the definition of a quesiton of a mapping >>>>> that we can ask a decider to try to compute that says the mapping >>>>> must be computable. >>>>> >>>> You are the one being stupid here, yet you can't help it. >>>> >>>> That you don't understand the details of how deciders >>>> are asked questions is significant ignorance on your part. >>> >>> Deciders are asked questions by the problem they are desi >>> >>>> >>>> You keep implicitly presuming the deciders can read computer >>>> science textbooks. >>> >>> And you keep on thinking that programs write themselves. >>> >>> The PROGRAMMER of the decider needs to understand the problem, and >>> then design the program to give the right answer. >> >> Yet the program must compute the mapping from the >> input to the behavior that the program is intended >> to report on or it cannot even be asked the question. > > Sounds about right for you logic, the program can't be wrong, as it > defines the question that it is answering. > > That isn't how it works, and you are just shown to be a stupid lying idiot. > Using ad hominen as a basis for rebuttal is objectively about as stupid as one gets. If I was even incorrect you could show the exact step of my mistake and thus have something more that pure bluster. > Your "Halt Deciders" just are not Correct Halt Deciders, and you are > LIAR for saying they are, > > PERIOD. > >> >> This is a very difficult brand new issue that no one has >> ever noticed before because they consistently rejected >> the notion of a simulating halt decider out-of-hand without >> any review. >> > > Nope, you logic is just incorrect. -- 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 15:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v54iul$lkkc$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107567 |
On 6/21/24 2:53 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2024 1:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/21/24 2:18 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/21/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/21/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/2024 12:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 9:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _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] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> That is the only definitive way to determine the >>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior that the finite string specifies. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It is the only was to COMPUTE the actual behavior, but to >>>>>>>>>> DETERMINE it doesn't need that. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ah so you expect that HH0 must use its intuition to >>>>>>>>> determine that behavior that it is supposed to report on. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nope, if it exists, it needs to compute the answer. But, it >>>>>>>> doesn't need to exist as a correct decider for halting. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If H(D,D) cannot apply finite string transformation rules >>>>>>> to its input finite string of x86 machine language of D to >>>>>>> derive the behavior of D(D) then H cannot even be asked >>>>>>> the question: Does D(D) halt? >>>>>> >>>>>> You are just showing your STUPDIITY and IGNRNCE of the topic. >>>>>> >>>>>> There is NOTHING about the definition of a quesiton of a mapping >>>>>> that we can ask a decider to try to compute that says the mapping >>>>>> must be computable. >>>>>> >>>>> You are the one being stupid here, yet you can't help it. >>>>> >>>>> That you don't understand the details of how deciders >>>>> are asked questions is significant ignorance on your part. >>>> >>>> Deciders are asked questions by the problem they are desi >>>> >>>>> >>>>> You keep implicitly presuming the deciders can read computer >>>>> science textbooks. >>>> >>>> And you keep on thinking that programs write themselves. >>>> >>>> The PROGRAMMER of the decider needs to understand the problem, and >>>> then design the program to give the right answer. >>> >>> Yet the program must compute the mapping from the >>> input to the behavior that the program is intended >>> to report on or it cannot even be asked the question. >> >> Sounds about right for you logic, the program can't be wrong, as it >> defines the question that it is answering. >> >> That isn't how it works, and you are just shown to be a stupid lying >> idiot. >> > > Using ad hominen as a basis for rebuttal is objectively > about as stupid as one gets. Which shows how little you understand logic. MY statement was not an ad hominem, as it pointed out that you were wrong, and why, and then pointed out that you were a stupid lying idiot because you keep on repeating the exact same error. YOUR statement on the other hand IS a ad hominem because the only reason you point out for me being wrong was that I was being stupid. THAT is not a valid argument, shown you TO BE STUPID. > > If I was even incorrect you could show the exact > step of my mistake and thus have something more > that pure bluster. Which I did. The program is wrong because it answered the wrong question. The question the program NEEDS to answer to be correct, is the question defined by the problem that the program was claimed to be solving, which in this case, is the halting problem, or you are just being a liar. The fact the code doesn't actually compute that answer doesn't change what is the correct answer for it to be what it was claimed to be. Of course, if a program always halts, it is trivially a decider for whatever it happens to compute, but that is an uninteresting problem i general. > >> Your "Halt Deciders" just are not Correct Halt Deciders, and you are >> LIAR for saying they are, >> >> PERIOD. >> >>> >>> This is a very difficult brand new issue that no one has >>> ever noticed before because they consistently rejected >>> the notion of a simulating halt decider out-of-hand without >>> any review. >>> >> >> Nope, you logic is just incorrect. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 14:19 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v54jo6$3a7vo$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107568 |
On 6/21/2024 2:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/21/24 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/21/2024 1:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/21/24 2:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 12:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 9:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> _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]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the only definitive way to determine the
>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior that the finite string specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It is the only was to COMPUTE the actual behavior, but to
>>>>>>>>>>> DETERMINE it doesn't need that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Ah so you expect that HH0 must use its intuition to
>>>>>>>>>> determine that behavior that it is supposed to report on.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nope, if it exists, it needs to compute the answer. But, it
>>>>>>>>> doesn't need to exist as a correct decider for halting.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If H(D,D) cannot apply finite string transformation rules
>>>>>>>> to its input finite string of x86 machine language of D to
>>>>>>>> derive the behavior of D(D) then H cannot even be asked
>>>>>>>> the question: Does D(D) halt?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are just showing your STUPDIITY and IGNRNCE of the topic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is NOTHING about the definition of a quesiton of a mapping
>>>>>>> that we can ask a decider to try to compute that says the mapping
>>>>>>> must be computable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are the one being stupid here, yet you can't help it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That you don't understand the details of how deciders
>>>>>> are asked questions is significant ignorance on your part.
>>>>>
>>>>> Deciders are asked questions by the problem they are desi
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You keep implicitly presuming the deciders can read computer
>>>>>> science textbooks.
>>>>>
>>>>> And you keep on thinking that programs write themselves.
>>>>>
>>>>> The PROGRAMMER of the decider needs to understand the problem, and
>>>>> then design the program to give the right answer.
>>>>
>>>> Yet the program must compute the mapping from the
>>>> input to the behavior that the program is intended
>>>> to report on or it cannot even be asked the question.
>>>
>>> Sounds about right for you logic, the program can't be wrong, as it
>>> defines the question that it is answering.
>>>
>>> That isn't how it works, and you are just shown to be a stupid lying
>>> idiot.
>>>
>>
>> Using ad hominen as a basis for rebuttal is objectively
>> about as stupid as one gets.
>
> Which shows how little you understand logic.
>
> MY statement was not an ad hominem, as it pointed out that you were
> wrong, and why, and then pointed out that you were a stupid lying idiot
> because you keep on repeating the exact same error.
>
> YOUR statement on the other hand IS a ad hominem because the only reason
> you point out for me being wrong was that I was being stupid.
>
> THAT is not a valid argument, shown you TO BE STUPID.
>
>>
>> If I was even incorrect you could show the exact
>> step of my mistake and thus have something more
>> that pure bluster.
>
> Which I did. The program is wrong because it answered the wrong
> question. The question the program NEEDS to answer to be correct, is the
> question defined by the problem that the program was claimed to be
> solving, which in this case, is the halting problem, or you are just
> being a liar.
>
int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
When this program is asked: sum(3,4) this maps to 7.
When this program is asked: sum(5,6) this DOES NOT map to 7.
When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H.
When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web