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 7 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 19 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 08:59 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v56hs2$onl3$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107586 |
On 6/21/24 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/21/2024 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/21/24 7:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if
>>>>>>>>>> M(d) will Halt.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior
>>>>>>>>> of D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually
>>>>>>>>> map to that behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG*
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least
>>>>>>>> when the representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0
>>>>>>>> answer) by just runnig it and seeing what it does.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to
>>>>>>> H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to do,
>>>>>> if it is one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When we do not simply make false assumptions about the
>>>>> behavior that the input to H(D,D) specifies:
>>>>> That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D) returns
>>>>
>>>> What "False Assumption"?
>>>>
>>>> You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>
>> But DEFINITIONS DO.
>>
>>>
>>> To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated
>>> by H to H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that
>>> this call *DOES NOT RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable
>>> because *THERE IS NO REASONING* that supports this.
>>>
>>
>> But that isn't the definition that we are using.
>>
>> NOTHING talks about the correct simulation BY H, except the invalid
>> and broken Olcott-Computation theory, which we are not using here.
>
> NOTHING talks about the correct simulation of D ONLY because
> I am the sole inventor of simulating halt deciders that no one
> ever thought ALL-THE-WAY through before.
Which means it CAN'T be the definition of the criteria for the Halting
Problem.
So, you are just ADMITTING that you are LYING about working on the
ACTUAL halting problem, but are just trying to fabricate a new
Olcott-Halting Problem, based on Olcott-Halting that no one else cares
about.
>
> The semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves as a verified
> fact that the behavior that D specifies to H is different than the
> behavior that D specifies to H1.
Nope. Which instruction, correctly simulated was different between the
"Correct simulation by H" and the actual execution.
It seems, as I best understand your claim, that will you claim to be
actually simulating the actual x86 instructions, your "Correct
Simulation" somehow knows that the call H shouldn't actually simulate
the x86 instructions that it goes to, but instead, act like the
effective results of the function you want H to be. THAT is NOT "Correct
x86 simulation", or correct simulation of any form.
The key point is that even just a functional simulation need the
simulation of H(D,D) to do the same thing that H(D,D) does, which in
this case is to return 0.
>
> You cannot simply correctly ignore that the pathological relationship
> that D calls H(D,D) and does not call H1(D,D) changes the behavior of
> D between these two cases.
>
But that relationship doesn't affect what a correct simulation is. It
might make it IMPOSSIBLE for H to completely correctly simulate its
input, or prove that such a simulation will actually go on forever, but
it doesn't change what a correct simulation is.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 08:12 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v56ijs$3or0r$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107599 |
On 6/22/2024 7:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/21/24 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/21/2024 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/21/24 7:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if
>>>>>>>>>>> M(d) will Halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior
>>>>>>>>>> of D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually
>>>>>>>>>> map to that behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG*
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least
>>>>>>>>> when the representation of D includes the H that is giving the
>>>>>>>>> 0 answer) by just runnig it and seeing what it does.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to
>>>>>>>> H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to do,
>>>>>>> if it is one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When we do not simply make false assumptions about the
>>>>>> behavior that the input to H(D,D) specifies:
>>>>>> That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D) returns
>>>>>
>>>>> What "False Assumption"?
>>>>>
>>>>> You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>>
>>> But DEFINITIONS DO.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated
>>>> by H to H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that
>>>> this call *DOES NOT RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable
>>>> because *THERE IS NO REASONING* that supports this.
>>>>
>>>
>>> But that isn't the definition that we are using.
>>>
>>> NOTHING talks about the correct simulation BY H, except the invalid
>>> and broken Olcott-Computation theory, which we are not using here.
>>
>> NOTHING talks about the correct simulation of D ONLY because
>> I am the sole inventor of simulating halt deciders that no one
>> ever thought ALL-THE-WAY through before.
>
> Which means it CAN'T be the definition of the criteria for the Halting
> Problem.
>
> So, you are just ADMITTING that you are LYING about working on the
> ACTUAL halting problem, but are just trying to fabricate a new
> Olcott-Halting Problem, based on Olcott-Halting that no one else cares
> about.
>
>>
>> The semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves as a verified
>> fact that the behavior that D specifies to H is different than the
>> behavior that D specifies to H1.
>
> Nope. Which instruction, correctly simulated was different between the
> "Correct simulation by H" and the actual execution.
>
> It seems, as I best understand your claim, that will you claim to be
> actually simulating the actual x86 instructions, your "Correct
> Simulation" somehow knows that the call H shouldn't actually simulate
> the x86 instructions that it goes to, but instead, act like the
> effective results of the function you want H to be. THAT is NOT "Correct
> x86 simulation", or correct simulation of any form.
>
> The key point is that even just a functional simulation need the
> simulation of H(D,D) to do the same thing that H(D,D) does, which in
> this case is to return 0.
>
>>
>> You cannot simply correctly ignore that the pathological relationship
>> that D calls H(D,D) and does not call H1(D,D) changes the behavior of
>> D between these two cases.
>>
>
> But that relationship doesn't affect what a correct simulation is. It
> might make it IMPOSSIBLE for H to completely correctly simulate its
> input, or prove that such a simulation will actually go on forever, but
> it doesn't change what a correct simulation is.
It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
to HH0 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH0(DDD) that
this call DOES NOT RETURN.
It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
to HH1 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH1(DDD) that
this call DOES RETURN.
I don't get why people here insist on lying about verified facts.
--
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 | 2024-06-22 09:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v56k4f$onl4$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107605 |
On 6/22/24 9:12 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/22/2024 7:59 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/21/24 11:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2024 6:38 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/24 7:27 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:46 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 5:25 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 4:10 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 4:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Right.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if
>>>>>>>>>>>> M(d) will Halt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior
>>>>>>>>>>> of D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually
>>>>>>>>>>> map to that behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG*
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least
>>>>>>>>>> when the representation of D includes the H that is giving the
>>>>>>>>>> 0 answer) by just runnig it and seeing what it does.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to
>>>>>>>>> H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The DEFINITION of a Halt Decider gives what H is SUPPOSED to do,
>>>>>>>> if it is one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You claim it is a correct Halt decider
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we do not simply make false assumptions about the
>>>>>>> behavior that the input to H(D,D) specifies:
>>>>>>> That the call from D correctly simulated by H to H(D,D) returns
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What "False Assumption"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You just are ignorant of the DEFINTION of the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>>>> *DOGMA DOES NOT COUNT AS SUPPORTING REASONING*
>>>>
>>>> But DEFINITIONS DO.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To "define" that the call from the D correctly simulated
>>>>> by H to H(D,D) returns when the actual facts prove that
>>>>> this call *DOES NOT RETURN* is ultimately unreasonable
>>>>> because *THERE IS NO REASONING* that supports this.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But that isn't the definition that we are using.
>>>>
>>>> NOTHING talks about the correct simulation BY H, except the invalid
>>>> and broken Olcott-Computation theory, which we are not using here.
>>>
>>> NOTHING talks about the correct simulation of D ONLY because
>>> I am the sole inventor of simulating halt deciders that no one
>>> ever thought ALL-THE-WAY through before.
>>
>> Which means it CAN'T be the definition of the criteria for the Halting
>> Problem.
>>
>> So, you are just ADMITTING that you are LYING about working on the
>> ACTUAL halting problem, but are just trying to fabricate a new
>> Olcott-Halting Problem, based on Olcott-Halting that no one else cares
>> about.
>>
>>>
>>> The semantics of the x86 language conclusively proves as a verified
>>> fact that the behavior that D specifies to H is different than the
>>> behavior that D specifies to H1.
>>
>> Nope. Which instruction, correctly simulated was different between the
>> "Correct simulation by H" and the actual execution.
>>
>> It seems, as I best understand your claim, that will you claim to be
>> actually simulating the actual x86 instructions, your "Correct
>> Simulation" somehow knows that the call H shouldn't actually simulate
>> the x86 instructions that it goes to, but instead, act like the
>> effective results of the function you want H to be. THAT is NOT
>> "Correct x86 simulation", or correct simulation of any form.
>>
>> The key point is that even just a functional simulation need the
>> simulation of H(D,D) to do the same thing that H(D,D) does, which in
>> this case is to return 0.
>>
>>>
>>> You cannot simply correctly ignore that the pathological relationship
>>> that D calls H(D,D) and does not call H1(D,D) changes the behavior of
>>> D between these two cases.
>>>
>>
>> But that relationship doesn't affect what a correct simulation is. It
>> might make it IMPOSSIBLE for H to completely correctly simulate its
>> input, or prove that such a simulation will actually go on forever,
>> but it doesn't change what a correct simulation is.
>
> It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
> to HH0 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH0(DDD) that
> this call DOES NOT RETURN.
>
> It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents
> to HH1 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH1(DDD) that
> this call DOES RETURN.
>
> I don't get why people here insist on lying about verified facts.
>
>
The problem is that the "behavior" that the finite string DDD presents
to HH0, is DEFINED by the problem. And if that problem is the Halting
Problem, that behavior is the behavior of the machine the input
represents. If HH0 treats the input as having a different behavior, then
HH0 just isn't a Halting Decider, but something else.
If HH0 is supposed to be a Halting decider, but uses a method that makes
it see something other than that behavior, then it is just an incorrect
Halting Decider, and its algorithm just creates an incorrect recreation
of the property of the input it is supposed to be working on.
A bit of a side note, the actual "Input" to HH0, is a pointer to memory,
and as such it passes a reference to ALL of memory considering the
starting point to be that address, so your "Input" isn't actually the
few bytes of DDD, but ALL of memory and a starting point. If you
actually mean that the input is just those few bytes pointed to by the
address, then the input is improperly formed and is NOT a proper
representation of the input machine, becuase it is incomplete.
The fact you don't understand this, seems to imply you are lacking the
basic knowledge to be talking about this sort of thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 04:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v55iph$nhbb$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107576 |
Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:52:21 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H. Like every other input, it should map to the behaviour of D(D). You are talking about H(H, D(D)), which is H simulating itself. >>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts. Only if H returns. >>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d) will >>>> Halt. >>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D) >>> yet cannot show this because it does not actually map to that behavior >>> *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG* Ridiculous. H is wrong. Your modification is not useful. >> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least when the >> representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0 answer) by just >> runnig it and seeing what it does. > No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to H(D,D) maps to the > behavior of D(D). If it doesn't, H is not a simulator. The input D(D) absolutely describes the behaviour of that machine. H just can't map it. > You assume that the call to H(D,D) from D correctly simulated by H *must > return* against the verified facts that it does not return. Either H is not a decider or it returns. > The directly executed D(D) is essentially the first call in a recursive > chain where the second call is always aborted. > *these two calls are not identical* They most definitely are. The input is the same. > H(D,D) is not free to simply assume that the call from D(D) to H(D,D) > will return. Yes it is, because it is a decider. It (incorrectly) aborts nonterminating inputs. -- Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 23:18 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v55jba$3jg9i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107587 |
On 6/21/2024 11:09 PM, joes wrote: > Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:52:21 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote: > >>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H. > Like every other input, it should map to the behaviour of D(D). > You are talking about H(H, D(D)), which is H simulating itself. >>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts. > Only if H returns. > >>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d) will >>>>> Halt. >>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D) >>>> yet cannot show this because it does not actually map to that behavior >>>> *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG* > Ridiculous. H is wrong. Your modification is not useful. >>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least when the >>> representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0 answer) by just >>> runnig it and seeing what it does. >> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to H(D,D) maps to the >> behavior of D(D). > If it doesn't, H is not a simulator. > The input D(D) absolutely describes the behaviour of that machine. > H just can't map it. > >> You assume that the call to H(D,D) from D correctly simulated by H *must >> return* against the verified facts that it does not return. > Either H is not a decider or it returns. > >> The directly executed D(D) is essentially the first call in a recursive >> chain where the second call is always aborted. >> *these two calls are not identical* > They most definitely are. The input is the same. > >> H(D,D) is not free to simply assume that the call from D(D) to H(D,D) >> will return. > Yes it is, because it is a decider. It (incorrectly) aborts nonterminating > inputs. > The behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 is the same as the behavior of the directly executed D(D) because D does not call H1(D,D) in recursive simulation. The behavior of D correctly simulated by H is NOT the same as the behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 because D DOES call H(D,D) in recursive simulation. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 08:47 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation |
| Message-ID | <v5633t$o4uv$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107588 |
Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 23:18:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/21/2024 11:09 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:52:21 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote: >> Like every other input, it should map to the behaviour of D(D). >> You are talking about H(H, D(D)), which is H simulating itself. >>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts. >> Only if H returns. >>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior of >>>>> D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually map to that >>>>> behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG* >> Ridiculous. H is wrong. Your modification is not useful. >>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to H(D,D) maps to >>> the behavior of D(D). >> If it doesn't, H is not a simulator. >> The input D(D) absolutely describes the behaviour of that machine. >> H just can't map it. >> Either H is not a decider or it returns. >>> The directly executed D(D) is essentially the first call in a >>> recursive chain where the second call is always aborted. >>> *these two calls are not identical* >> They most definitely are. The input is the same. >>> H(D,D) is not free to simply assume that the call from D(D) to H(D,D) >>> will return. >> Yes it is, because it is a decider. It (incorrectly) aborts >> nonterminating inputs. > The behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 is the same as the behavior > of the directly executed D(D) because D does not call H1(D,D) in > recursive simulation. D1 however, which calls H1(D1, D1), can't be decided by H1. > The behavior of D correctly simulated by H is NOT the same as the > behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 because D DOES call H(D,D) in > recursive simulation. The simulation by H is then of course not correct. What about the other points above? -- Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 08:08 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation |
| Message-ID | <v56id4$3or0r$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107593 |
On 6/22/2024 3:47 AM, joes wrote: > Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 23:18:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/21/2024 11:09 PM, joes wrote: >>> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:52:21 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote: > >>> Like every other input, it should map to the behaviour of D(D). >>> You are talking about H(H, D(D)), which is H simulating itself. > >>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts. >>> Only if H returns. > >>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior of >>>>>> D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually map to that >>>>>> behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG* >>> Ridiculous. H is wrong. Your modification is not useful. > >>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to H(D,D) maps to >>>> the behavior of D(D). >>> If it doesn't, H is not a simulator. >>> The input D(D) absolutely describes the behaviour of that machine. >>> H just can't map it. >>> Either H is not a decider or it returns. > >>>> The directly executed D(D) is essentially the first call in a >>>> recursive chain where the second call is always aborted. >>>> *these two calls are not identical* >>> They most definitely are. The input is the same. > >>>> H(D,D) is not free to simply assume that the call from D(D) to H(D,D) >>>> will return. >>> Yes it is, because it is a decider. It (incorrectly) aborts >>> nonterminating inputs. >> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 is the same as the behavior >> of the directly executed D(D) because D does not call H1(D,D) in >> recursive simulation. > D1 however, which calls H1(D1, D1), can't be decided by H1. > When you change the subject rather than address the point at hand I take this to mean that you do not want an honest dialogue. >> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H is NOT the same as the >> behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 because D DOES call H(D,D) in >> recursive simulation. > The simulation by H is then of course not correct. > > What about the other points above? > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 14:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Boilerplate Reply -- different simulation |
| Message-ID | <v56nhd$ov4f$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107603 |
Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 08:08:51 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/22/2024 3:47 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 23:18:50 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/21/2024 11:09 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:52:21 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to H(D,D) maps to >>>>> the behavior of D(D). >>>> If it doesn't, H is not a simulator. >>>> The input D(D) absolutely describes the behaviour of that machine. >>>> H just can't map it. >>>> Either H is not a decider or it returns. >>>>> H(D,D) is not free to simply assume that the call from D(D) to >>>>> H(D,D) will return. >>>> Yes it is, because it is a decider. It (incorrectly) aborts >>>> nonterminating inputs. >>> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 is the same as the >>> behavior of the directly executed D(D) because D does not call H1(D,D) >>> in recursive simulation. >> D1 however, which calls H1(D1, D1), can't be decided by H1. > When you change the subject rather than address the point at hand I take > this to mean that you do not want an honest dialogue. Unlike you, I replied to the points at hand. See below. >>> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H is NOT the same as the >>> behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 because D DOES call H(D,D) in >>> recursive simulation. >> The simulation by H is then of course not correct. >> What about the other points above? Yeah, what about them? -- Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 09:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v56i60$onl3$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107588 |
On 6/22/24 12:18 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2024 11:09 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:52:21 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote: >> >>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H. >> Like every other input, it should map to the behaviour of D(D). >> You are talking about H(H, D(D)), which is H simulating itself. >>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts. >> Only if H returns. >> >>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d) will >>>>>> Halt. >>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior of D(D) >>>>> yet cannot show this because it does not actually map to that behavior >>>>> *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG* >> Ridiculous. H is wrong. Your modification is not useful. >>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least when the >>>> representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0 answer) by just >>>> runnig it and seeing what it does. >>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to H(D,D) maps to the >>> behavior of D(D). >> If it doesn't, H is not a simulator. >> The input D(D) absolutely describes the behaviour of that machine. >> H just can't map it. >> >>> You assume that the call to H(D,D) from D correctly simulated by H *must >>> return* against the verified facts that it does not return. >> Either H is not a decider or it returns. >> >>> The directly executed D(D) is essentially the first call in a recursive >>> chain where the second call is always aborted. >>> *these two calls are not identical* >> They most definitely are. The input is the same. >> >>> H(D,D) is not free to simply assume that the call from D(D) to H(D,D) >>> will return. >> Yes it is, because it is a decider. It (incorrectly) aborts >> nonterminating >> inputs. >> > > The behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 is the same as > the behavior of the directly executed D(D) because D does not > call H1(D,D) in recursive simulation. > > The behavior of D correctly simulated by H is NOT the same as > the behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 because D DOES > call H(D,D) in recursive simulation. > Which just shows that H doesn't do an OBJECTIVELY "Correct Simulation". The error in the simulation has been pointed out, but you just don't understand it, it seems because you think truth is just naturally subjective, but it isn't.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 08:15 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v56iqf$3or0r$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107602 |
On 6/22/2024 8:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/22/24 12:18 AM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/21/2024 11:09 PM, joes wrote: >>> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:52:21 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H. >>> Like every other input, it should map to the behaviour of D(D). >>> You are talking about H(H, D(D)), which is H simulating itself. >>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts. >>> Only if H returns. >>> >>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d) will >>>>>>> Halt. >>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior of >>>>>> D(D) >>>>>> yet cannot show this because it does not actually map to that >>>>>> behavior >>>>>> *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG* >>> Ridiculous. H is wrong. Your modification is not useful. >>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least when >>>>> the >>>>> representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0 answer) by >>>>> just >>>>> runnig it and seeing what it does. >>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to H(D,D) maps to the >>>> behavior of D(D). >>> If it doesn't, H is not a simulator. >>> The input D(D) absolutely describes the behaviour of that machine. >>> H just can't map it. >>> >>>> You assume that the call to H(D,D) from D correctly simulated by H >>>> *must >>>> return* against the verified facts that it does not return. >>> Either H is not a decider or it returns. >>> >>>> The directly executed D(D) is essentially the first call in a recursive >>>> chain where the second call is always aborted. >>>> *these two calls are not identical* >>> They most definitely are. The input is the same. >>> >>>> H(D,D) is not free to simply assume that the call from D(D) to H(D,D) >>>> will return. >>> Yes it is, because it is a decider. It (incorrectly) aborts >>> nonterminating >>> inputs. >>> >> >> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 is the same as >> the behavior of the directly executed D(D) because D does not >> call H1(D,D) in recursive simulation. >> >> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H is NOT the same as >> the behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 because D DOES >> call H(D,D) in recursive simulation. >> > > Which just shows that H doesn't do an OBJECTIVELY "Correct Simulation". > If you weren't simply lying about this and risking eternal damnation then you could point out which x86 instruction was emulated incorrectly. Since you already know that none of them were emulated incorrectly I suggest that you repent. > The error in the simulation has been pointed out, but you just don't > understand it, it seems because you think truth is just naturally > subjective, but it isn't. -- 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 | 2024-06-22 09:35 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v56jvh$onl3$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107607 |
On 6/22/24 9:15 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/22/2024 8:05 AM, Richard Damon wrote: >> On 6/22/24 12:18 AM, olcott wrote: >>> On 6/21/2024 11:09 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 15:52:21 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/21/2024 3:00 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:45 PM, olcott wrote: >>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote: >>>> >>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this maps to D correctly simulated by H. >>>> Like every other input, it should map to the behaviour of D(D). >>>> You are talking about H(H, D(D)), which is H simulating itself. >>>>>>>>> When H is asked H(D,D) this DOES NOT map to behavior that halts. >>>> Only if H returns. >>>> >>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d) >>>>>>>> will >>>>>>>> Halt. >>>>>>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior of >>>>>>> D(D) >>>>>>> yet cannot show this because it does not actually map to that >>>>>>> behavior >>>>>>> *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG* >>>> Ridiculous. H is wrong. Your modification is not useful. >>>>>> But we CAN show that it maps to the behavior of D(D) (at least >>>>>> when the >>>>>> representation of D includes the H that is giving the 0 answer) by >>>>>> just >>>>>> runnig it and seeing what it does. >>>>> No you cannot show that the mapping for the input to H(D,D) maps to >>>>> the >>>>> behavior of D(D). >>>> If it doesn't, H is not a simulator. >>>> The input D(D) absolutely describes the behaviour of that machine. >>>> H just can't map it. >>>> >>>>> You assume that the call to H(D,D) from D correctly simulated by H >>>>> *must >>>>> return* against the verified facts that it does not return. >>>> Either H is not a decider or it returns. >>>> >>>>> The directly executed D(D) is essentially the first call in a >>>>> recursive >>>>> chain where the second call is always aborted. >>>>> *these two calls are not identical* >>>> They most definitely are. The input is the same. >>>> >>>>> H(D,D) is not free to simply assume that the call from D(D) to H(D,D) >>>>> will return. >>>> Yes it is, because it is a decider. It (incorrectly) aborts >>>> nonterminating >>>> inputs. >>>> >>> >>> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 is the same as >>> the behavior of the directly executed D(D) because D does not >>> call H1(D,D) in recursive simulation. >>> >>> The behavior of D correctly simulated by H is NOT the same as >>> the behavior of D correctly simulated by H1 because D DOES >>> call H(D,D) in recursive simulation. >>> >> >> Which just shows that H doesn't do an OBJECTIVELY "Correct Simulation". >> > > If you weren't simply lying about this and risking eternal damnation > then you could point out which x86 instruction was emulated incorrectly. > The CALL H instruction > Since you already know that none of them were emulated incorrectly > I suggest that you repent. Really, then why have you been unable to post the actual trace of the simulation of DDD (or D, or DD) simulated by H (or HH, or HH0, or whatever) that actually shows a correct simulation of the call to the decider instruction. Your short inline traces NEVER actually simulate that call instruction, but switch to looking at the simulation that was being CONDITIONALLY simulated (since the decider has the option to abort) instead of showing the act of simulation with the conditional in that operation. Your long traces have alwasy been the execution trace of the simulator its self, and not the simulation it was doing. So, your "verifaction" is based on somethng that you have been unable to produce, and almost certainly something you haven't actually seen for yourself (or you would have post it instead of the wrong trace TWICE). I will point out that you seem to be willing to gamble your eternal soul on facts that you just beleive must be true, even though everyone is pointing out your errors. It seems that what ever "Heaven" you get to, you are apt to be alone in it, which will mean it isn't Heaven. > >> The error in the simulation has been pointed out, but you just don't >> understand it, it seems because you think truth is just naturally >> subjective, but it isn't. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 12:08 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v5649q$3mf42$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107573 |
On 2024-06-21 19:45:37 +0000, olcott said: > If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior > of D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually > map to that behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG* A definiton is not wrong if it serves its intended purpose. You may say that a definition is worng if the meaning it gives to the defined term is not the meaning the author wants to give it or if the author uses the term in a way that is not compatible to the definition. But the important point is the author's intent. That you don't like a definition does not make it wrong. In your own opus you may present and use your own defintions. But the scope of those definitions is the opus where they are presented. They do not apply elsewhere. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 07:58 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v56hoq$3or0r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107595 |
On 6/22/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-21 19:45:37 +0000, olcott said: > >> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior >> of D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually >> map to that behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG* > > A definiton is not wrong if it serves its intended purpose. It purpose seems to be to lie about the halting problem and it doe succeed at that. It is purpose is to tell the truth about the halting problem then it fails. > You may say > that a definition is worng if the meaning it gives to the defined term > is not the meaning the author wants to give it or if the author uses the > term in a way that is not compatible to the definition. But the important > point is the author's intent. That you don't like a definition does not > make it wrong. It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents to HH0 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH0(DDD) that this call DOES NOT RETURN. It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents to HH1 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH1(DDD) that this call DOES RETURN. I don't get why people here insist on lying about verified facts. > > In your own opus you may present and use your own defintions. But the > scope of those definitions is the opus where they are presented. They > do not apply elsewhere. > -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 09:22 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v56j7b$onl4$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107598 |
On 6/22/24 8:58 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/22/2024 4:08 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-21 19:45:37 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> If one "defines" that the input to H(D,D) maps to the behavior >>> of D(D) yet cannot show this because it does not actually >>> map to that behavior *THEN THE DEFINITION IS SIMPLY WRONG* >> >> A definiton is not wrong if it serves its intended purpose. > > It purpose seems to be to lie about the halting problem and it > doe succeed at that. It is purpose is to tell the truth about > the halting problem then it fails. You would think that the definition used to define the problem would actually tell you the purpose of the problem. > >> You may say >> that a definition is worng if the meaning it gives to the defined term >> is not the meaning the author wants to give it or if the author uses the >> term in a way that is not compatible to the definition. But the important >> point is the author's intent. That you don't like a definition does not >> make it wrong. > > It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents > to HH0 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH0(DDD) that > this call DOES NOT RETURN. > > It is a verified fact that the behavior that finite string DDD presents > to HH1 is that when DDD correctly simulated by HH0 calls HH1(DDD) that > this call DOES RETURN. > > I don't get why people here insist on lying about verified facts. The problem is that the "behavior" that the finite string DDD presents to HH0, is DEFINED by the problem. And if that problem is the Halting Problem, that behavior is the behavior of the machine the input represents. If HH0 treats the input as having a different behavior, then HH0 just isn't a Halting Decider, but something else. If HH0 is supposed to be a Halting decider, but uses a method that makes it see something other than that behavior, then it is just an incorrect Halting Decider, and its algorithm just creates an incorrect recreation of the property of the input it is supposed to be working on. A bit of a side note, the actual "Input" to HH0, is a pointer to memory, and as such it passes a reference to ALL of memory considering the starting point to be that address, so your "Input" isn't actually the few bytes of DDD, but ALL of memory and a starting point. If you actually mean that the input is just those few bytes pointed to by the address, then the input is improperly formed and is NOT a proper representation of the input machine, becuase it is incomplete. The fact you don't understand this, seems to imply you are lacking the basic knowledge to be talking about this sort of thing. > >> >> In your own opus you may present and use your own defintions. But the >> scope of those definitions is the opus where they are presented. They >> do not apply elsewhere. >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 08:49 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v540cu$36ipc$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! > The behavior (halting or not) of a finite string of x86 machine code is ruled by the semantics of the x86 language. This behavior is the sequence of state transitions that are specified by the x86 finite string of machine code within the semantics of the x86 programming language. When we look at the behavior that DDD specifies this behavior includes that DDD specifies a recursive simulation of itself. People stuck in rebuttal mode hate to go though these steps because it derails their rebuttal mode with objective facts. _DDD() [00002093] 55 push ebp [00002094] 8bec mov ebp,esp [00002096] 6893200000 push 00002093 ; push DDD [0000209b] e853f4ffff call 000014f3 ; call HH0 [000020a0] 83c404 add esp,+04 [000020a3] 5d pop ebp [000020a4] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4] -- 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 10:41 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v543ef$lkkb$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107539 |
On 6/21/24 9:49 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! >> > > The behavior (halting or not) of a finite string of x86 > machine code is ruled by the semantics of the x86 language. Right. > > This behavior is the sequence of state transitions that are > specified by the x86 finite string of machine code within > the semantics of the x86 programming language. Right. > > When we look at the behavior that DDD specifies this behavior > includes that DDD specifies a recursive simulation of itself. Nope, ir specifies that it calls a SPECIFIC HH0 that you have defined will simulate its input for so long and then abort. HH0 is a fixed defined piece of code to ask the question, and since you are claiming HH0 is correct to return 0, we need to verify the DDD that uses that HH0, since that is what HH0 was given. > > People stuck in rebuttal mode hate to go though these steps > because it derails their rebuttal mode with objective facts. People stuck in their own lies can never see the truth. The following is NOT a complete definition of the input, if it is, then the "correct behavior" is that the code behavior is UNDEFINED when it accesses information not within itself and thus the question is not valid. > > _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] > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 10:16 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v539bk$329sv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107496 |
On 2024-06-20 15:04:35 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >> >>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >> >>> I really don't care what you believe. >>> It is not about belief. >>> It is about correct reasoning. >> >> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present >> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >> reasoning is correct. > > I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way > to people that have already made up their mind and closed it > thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking > for an error and finding none. If you can't convince the reviewers of a journal that your article is well thought and well written you cannot get it published in a respected journal. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 08:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v53upb$35vak$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107529 |
On 6/21/2024 2:16 AM, Mikko wrote: > On 2024-06-20 15:04:35 +0000, olcott said: > >> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> >>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>> >>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>> It is not about belief. >>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>> >>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present >>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>> reasoning is correct. >> >> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way >> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it >> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking >> for an error and finding none. > > If you can't convince the reviewers of a journal that your article is > well thought and well written you cannot get it published in a > respected journal. > The trick is to get people that say I am wrong to point out the exact mistake. When they really try to do this they find no mistake and all of their rebbutal was pure bluster with no actual basis. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 10:43 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v543hp$lkkb$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107538 |
On 6/21/24 9:21 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/21/2024 2:16 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-20 15:04:35 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>>> >>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>> >>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present >>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>> reasoning is correct. >>> >>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way >>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it >>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking >>> for an error and finding none. >> >> If you can't convince the reviewers of a journal that your article is >> well thought and well written you cannot get it published in a >> respected journal. >> > > The trick is to get people that say I am wrong > to point out the exact mistake. When they really > try to do this they find no mistake and all of > their rebbutal was pure bluster with no actual basis. > No we do, its just you don't like that the problem is you asked the wrong question. It seems beyond your understanding that you hav WASTED two decades of work looking at the wrong thing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 14:06 +0300 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v56b7f$3npbv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107538 |
On 2024-06-21 13:21:47 +0000, olcott said: > On 6/21/2024 2:16 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-20 15:04:35 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>>> >>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>> >>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present >>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>> reasoning is correct. >>> >>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way >>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it >>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking >>> for an error and finding none. >> >> If you can't convince the reviewers of a journal that your article is >> well thought and well written you cannot get it published in a >> respected journal. >> > > The trick is to get people that say I am wrong > to point out the exact mistake. When they really > try to do this they find no mistake and all of > their rebbutal was pure bluster with no actual basis. That trick does not work with editors and thir reviewers. -- Mikko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web