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 6 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 19 Next page →
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 15:33 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v54kik$lkkb$10@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107570 |
On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/21/2024 2:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/21/24 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2024 1:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/24 2:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 12:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 9:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002093] 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002094] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>> [00002096] 6893200000 push 00002093 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>>>> [0000209b] e853f4ffff call 000014f3 ; call HH0
>>>>>>>>>>> [000020a0] 83c404 add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>> [000020a3] 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>> [000020a4] c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4]
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the only definitive way to determine the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior that the finite string specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the only was to COMPUTE the actual behavior, but to
>>>>>>>>>>>> DETERMINE it doesn't need that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Ah so you expect that HH0 must use its intuition to
>>>>>>>>>>> determine that behavior that it is supposed to report on.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope, if it exists, it needs to compute the answer. But, it
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't need to exist as a correct decider for halting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If H(D,D) cannot apply finite string transformation rules
>>>>>>>>> to its input finite string of x86 machine language of D to
>>>>>>>>> derive the behavior of D(D) then H cannot even be asked
>>>>>>>>> the question: Does D(D) halt?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are just showing your STUPDIITY and IGNRNCE of the topic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is NOTHING about the definition of a quesiton of a mapping
>>>>>>>> that we can ask a decider to try to compute that says the
>>>>>>>> mapping must be computable.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are the one being stupid here, yet you can't help it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That you don't understand the details of how deciders
>>>>>>> are asked questions is significant ignorance on your part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Deciders are asked questions by the problem they are desi
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You keep implicitly presuming the deciders can read computer
>>>>>>> science textbooks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you keep on thinking that programs write themselves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The PROGRAMMER of the decider needs to understand the problem, and
>>>>>> then design the program to give the right answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet the program must compute the mapping from the
>>>>> input to the behavior that the program is intended
>>>>> to report on or it cannot even be asked the question.
>>>>
>>>> Sounds about right for you logic, the program can't be wrong, as it
>>>> defines the question that it is answering.
>>>>
>>>> That isn't how it works, and you are just shown to be a stupid lying
>>>> idiot.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Using ad hominen as a basis for rebuttal is objectively
>>> about as stupid as one gets.
>>
>> Which shows how little you understand logic.
>>
>> MY statement was not an ad hominem, as it pointed out that you were
>> wrong, and why, and then pointed out that you were a stupid lying
>> idiot because you keep on repeating the exact same error.
>>
>> YOUR statement on the other hand IS a ad hominem because the only
>> reason you point out for me being wrong was that I was being stupid.
>>
>> THAT is not a valid argument, shown you TO BE STUPID.
>>
>>>
>>> If I was even incorrect you could show the exact
>>> step of my mistake and thus have something more
>>> that pure bluster.
>>
>> Which I did. The program is wrong because it answered the wrong
>> question. The question the program NEEDS to answer to be correct, is
>> the question defined by the problem that the program was claimed to be
>> solving, which in this case, is the halting problem, or you are just
>> being a liar.
>>
> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
> When this program is asked: sum(3,4) this maps to 7.
> When this program is asked: sum(5,6) this DOES NOT map to 7.
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.
What you are doing is the equivalent of instead of sum(x, y) returning x
+ y, it is returning x * y.
It is doing the WRONG operation on the right data.
YOu are just LYING about what you are supposed to do with absolutely NO
basis.
Please show where Halting is defined by your statement.
NOT something you wrote.
FAILURE IS JUST ADMISSION THAT YOU HAVE BEEN LYING.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 14:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v54l91$3a7vo$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107572 |
On 6/21/2024 2:33 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/21/24 3:19 PM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/21/2024 2:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>> On 6/21/24 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/2024 1:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/24 2:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 12:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 9:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002093] 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002094] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002096] 6893200000 push 00002093 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000209b] e853f4ffff call 000014f3 ; call HH0
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000020a0] 83c404 add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000020a3] 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>> [000020a4] c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4]
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the only definitive way to determine the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior that the finite string specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the only was to COMPUTE the actual behavior, but to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> DETERMINE it doesn't need that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah so you expect that HH0 must use its intuition to
>>>>>>>>>>>> determine that behavior that it is supposed to report on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, if it exists, it needs to compute the answer. But, it
>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't need to exist as a correct decider for halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If H(D,D) cannot apply finite string transformation rules
>>>>>>>>>> to its input finite string of x86 machine language of D to
>>>>>>>>>> derive the behavior of D(D) then H cannot even be asked
>>>>>>>>>> the question: Does D(D) halt?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are just showing your STUPDIITY and IGNRNCE of the topic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is NOTHING about the definition of a quesiton of a
>>>>>>>>> mapping that we can ask a decider to try to compute that says
>>>>>>>>> the mapping must be computable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are the one being stupid here, yet you can't help it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That you don't understand the details of how deciders
>>>>>>>> are asked questions is significant ignorance on your part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Deciders are asked questions by the problem they are desi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You keep implicitly presuming the deciders can read computer
>>>>>>>> science textbooks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And you keep on thinking that programs write themselves.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The PROGRAMMER of the decider needs to understand the problem,
>>>>>>> and then design the program to give the right answer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yet the program must compute the mapping from the
>>>>>> input to the behavior that the program is intended
>>>>>> to report on or it cannot even be asked the question.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds about right for you logic, the program can't be wrong, as it
>>>>> defines the question that it is answering.
>>>>>
>>>>> That isn't how it works, and you are just shown to be a stupid
>>>>> lying idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Using ad hominen as a basis for rebuttal is objectively
>>>> about as stupid as one gets.
>>>
>>> Which shows how little you understand logic.
>>>
>>> MY statement was not an ad hominem, as it pointed out that you were
>>> wrong, and why, and then pointed out that you were a stupid lying
>>> idiot because you keep on repeating the exact same error.
>>>
>>> YOUR statement on the other hand IS a ad hominem because the only
>>> reason you point out for me being wrong was that I was being stupid.
>>>
>>> THAT is not a valid argument, shown you TO BE STUPID.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If I was even incorrect you could show the exact
>>>> step of my mistake and thus have something more
>>>> that pure bluster.
>>>
>>> Which I did. The program is wrong because it answered the wrong
>>> question. The question the program NEEDS to answer to be correct, is
>>> the question defined by the problem that the program was claimed to
>>> be solving, which in this case, is the halting problem, or you are
>>> just being a liar.
>>>
>> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
>> When this program is asked: sum(3,4) this maps to 7.
>> When this program is asked: sum(5,6) this DOES NOT map to 7.
>
> 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*
Being a rigid dogmatist you can't ever get this.
If "God" tells you to murder your first born son you
will simply do it never realizing your psychotic break
is not actually God.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 16:00 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v54m58$lkkc$12@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107573 |
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:
>>> On 6/21/2024 2:05 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>> On 6/21/24 2:53 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 6/21/2024 1:42 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>> On 6/21/24 2:18 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 12:52 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 1:38 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 12:26 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 1:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 12:06 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:56 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/2024 9:36 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 6/21/24 12:01 AM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> _DDD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002093] 55 push ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002094] 8bec mov ebp,esp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [00002096] 6893200000 push 00002093 ; push DDD
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [0000209b] e853f4ffff call 000014f3 ; call HH0
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000020a0] 83c404 add esp,+04
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000020a3] 5d pop ebp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [000020a4] c3 ret
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Size in bytes:(0018) [000020a4]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is the only definitive way to determine the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actual behavior that the finite string specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the only was to COMPUTE the actual behavior, but to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DETERMINE it doesn't need that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah so you expect that HH0 must use its intuition to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine that behavior that it is supposed to report on.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, if it exists, it needs to compute the answer. But, it
>>>>>>>>>>>> doesn't need to exist as a correct decider for halting.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If H(D,D) cannot apply finite string transformation rules
>>>>>>>>>>> to its input finite string of x86 machine language of D to
>>>>>>>>>>> derive the behavior of D(D) then H cannot even be asked
>>>>>>>>>>> the question: Does D(D) halt?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You are just showing your STUPDIITY and IGNRNCE of the topic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> There is NOTHING about the definition of a quesiton of a
>>>>>>>>>> mapping that we can ask a decider to try to compute that says
>>>>>>>>>> the mapping must be computable.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You are the one being stupid here, yet you can't help it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That you don't understand the details of how deciders
>>>>>>>>> are asked questions is significant ignorance on your part.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Deciders are asked questions by the problem they are desi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You keep implicitly presuming the deciders can read computer
>>>>>>>>> science textbooks.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And you keep on thinking that programs write themselves.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The PROGRAMMER of the decider needs to understand the problem,
>>>>>>>> and then design the program to give the right answer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet the program must compute the mapping from the
>>>>>>> input to the behavior that the program is intended
>>>>>>> to report on or it cannot even be asked the question.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds about right for you logic, the program can't be wrong, as
>>>>>> it defines the question that it is answering.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That isn't how it works, and you are just shown to be a stupid
>>>>>> lying idiot.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Using ad hominen as a basis for rebuttal is objectively
>>>>> about as stupid as one gets.
>>>>
>>>> Which shows how little you understand logic.
>>>>
>>>> MY statement was not an ad hominem, as it pointed out that you were
>>>> wrong, and why, and then pointed out that you were a stupid lying
>>>> idiot because you keep on repeating the exact same error.
>>>>
>>>> YOUR statement on the other hand IS a ad hominem because the only
>>>> reason you point out for me being wrong was that I was being stupid.
>>>>
>>>> THAT is not a valid argument, shown you TO BE STUPID.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If I was even incorrect you could show the exact
>>>>> step of my mistake and thus have something more
>>>>> that pure bluster.
>>>>
>>>> Which I did. The program is wrong because it answered the wrong
>>>> question. The question the program NEEDS to answer to be correct, is
>>>> the question defined by the problem that the program was claimed to
>>>> be solving, which in this case, is the halting problem, or you are
>>>> just being a liar.
>>>>
>>> int sum(int x, int y){ return x + y; }
>>> When this program is asked: sum(3,4) this maps to 7.
>>> When this program is asked: sum(5,6) this DOES NOT map to 7.
>>
>> 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.
Thus, the actual defined mapping exist, it just isn't comutable by H.
>
> Being a rigid dogmatist you can't ever get this.
And you being an anarchist means that doesn't understand that there ARE
rules, which means you don't know what is allowed in the system, so you
can't actually show anything.
>
> If "God" tells you to murder your first born son you
> will simply do it never realizing your psychotic break
> is not actually God.
>
But Abraham began to do exactly that, until God told him to stop, and
this was credited to him as rightousness.
Now, if your God isn't the real God, trusting him is foolishness, which
is the danger in only beleiving parts of his word.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 15:52 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v54p66$3b4at$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107575 |
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).
That you saw Bill's identical twin brother Jack rob
a liquor store does not prove that Bill robbed
that liquor store.
Instead you simply assume that the mapping from a
non-input must equally apply.
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.
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*
If H(D,D) did not correctly recognize that it must abort
the simulation of its input to correctly prevent its own
non-termination the directly executed D(D) would never halt.
> Thus, the actual defined mapping exist, it just isn't comutable by H.
>
Misconceptions do not count as mapping.
int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
Does not map sum(5,6) to 7.
The input to H(D,D) does not map to halting.
H(D,D) is not free to simply assume that the call from
D(D) to H(D,D) will return.
--
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 17:10 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v54q7i$lkkc$13@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107576 |
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
>
> That you saw Bill's identical twin brother Jack rob
> a liquor store does not prove that Bill robbed
> that liquor store.
>
> Instead you simply assume that the mapping from a
> non-input must equally apply.
Nope,
>
> 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.
No, I presume that a call from D to H(D,D) does what it was DEFINED to
do, and that is to ask H to decide on the behvior of the computation D(D).
If that doesn't do that, then you are just admitting you have been lying
for all these years.
>
> 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*
So, you admit that H isn't a pure functions, and not the equivalent to
the needed Turing Machine,
Thus, you have wasted your last two decades.
>
> If H(D,D) did not correctly recognize that it must abort
> the simulation of its input to correctly prevent its own
> non-termination the directly executed D(D) would never halt.
But it does abort it simulation. YOU are the one confusing Bill with his
twin brother Jack.
Which just shows you to be an INTENTILNAL liar, as your deception has
been mentioned before, but you keep on repeating it.
>
>> Thus, the actual defined mapping exist, it just isn't comutable by H.
>>
>
> Misconceptions do not count as mapping.
> int sum(int x, int y) { return x + y; }
> Does not map sum(5,6) to 7.
Right, because that uses the wrong input
> The input to H(D,D) does not map to halting.
It does if H is supposed to be a Halt Decider.
>
> H(D,D) is not free to simply assume that the call from
> D(D) to H(D,D) will return.
>
No, it can't assume it, but it can't assume it isn't going to return
either. You just lie to your programs as you lie to everything else.
Face it, you are just accumulating rebuttals that you just refuse to
evern try to answer, because I think you know in your heart you ideas
are just indefensable.
You are just establishing your lasting legacy of the man who would not
stop lying, as he didn't know the basics of what he was talking about.
Maybe you should leave your brain to science to see if they can figure
out what made you so unabe to learn definitions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 16:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v54r4g$3bg8o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107577 |
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
Then H(D,D) does correctly report on the actual behavior
that its input specifies.
You can see that this call does not return yet claim
that it returns anyway... The mindset of a Liar or
one indoctrinated as the Moonies were indoctrinated.
Moon's book, The Divine Principle, informs the beliefs
of the Unification Church. Moon considered himself the
Second Coming of Christ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_Church
--
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 17:46 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v54scd$lkkb$11@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107578 |
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.
You "Correctly Simulated by H" is just your own made up FABLE for the
problem.
If H is called a Halt Decider, then the correct answer is based on the
definition of a Halt Decider, which is the behavior of the program
represented by the input when directly run.
PERIOD.
>
> Then H(D,D) does correctly report on the actual behavior
> that its input specifies.
Only if it is called a POOP decider, not a HALT decider.
>
> You can see that this call does not return yet claim
> that it returns anyway... The mindset of a Liar or
> one indoctrinated as the Moonies were indoctrinated.
What "call" doesn't return?
>
> Moon's book, The Divine Principle, informs the beliefs
> of the Unification Church. Moon considered himself the
> Second Coming of Christ...
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unification_Church
>
>
So? More illogical Red Herring.
YOU are the one trying to lie about what YOU want to be your Dogma, but
no one else accepts.
Sorry, you are just proving your stupidity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 17:44 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v54vp8$3cgv7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107579 |
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.
>
When cats are defined as dogs the definition is wrong.
Likewise when the input to H(D,D) is defined as the
behavior of D(D) *in the case where D calls H(D,D)*
That it is correct in every other case has lead you
astray. That no one has ever seen any case where they
differ makes it very difficult to accept the verified
fact that they do differ.
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.
--
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 18:58 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v550ip$lkkc$15@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107580 |
On 6/21/24 6:44 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.
>>
>
> When cats are defined as dogs the definition is wrong.
> Likewise when the input to H(D,D) is defined as the
> behavior of D(D) *in the case where D calls H(D,D)*
Nope. You can't change the definitions.
If you think that somehow cats have been defined as dogs, then you need
to try to show that problem, and get people to accept your alternate
definition for your new thing as what will be considered as the
"standard thing".
This is what Russel showed about Naive Set Theory, and then Lempel and
Ziv came up with a new basis which the community accepted as the new
default meaning of "Set Theory" when used without a modifier.
Until you can show that the Turing Computation theory has a similar
level of problem and that Olcott Computation theory has an answer that
people think is worth it, and the broad community has accepted it, You
need to be explicit that your idea are NOT part of "Standard Computation
Theory" but are only Olcott Computation Theory. (or even just
Olcott-Halting).
Note, one big problem with Olcott-Halting is it is NOT a property of a
given machine, but of a machine-decider combination, which makes it not
suitable as a property for most uses.
>
> That it is correct in every other case has lead you
> astray. That no one has ever seen any case where they
> differ makes it very difficult to accept the verified
> fact that they do differ.
Nope, until you convince the community that there is something wrong
with currect computation theory, and that we need a new theory, that you
can provide, your statement is just false.
>
> 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.
>
Nope, you don't get to change the meaning.
PERIOD.
You are just showing you are just an ignorant liar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 18:11 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v551ao$3cofl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107581 |
On 6/21/2024 5:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/21/24 6:44 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.
>>>
>>
>> When cats are defined as dogs the definition is wrong.
>> Likewise when the input to H(D,D) is defined as the
>> behavior of D(D) *in the case where D calls H(D,D)*
>
> Nope. You can't change the definitions.
>
> If you think that somehow cats have been defined as dogs, then you need
> to try to show that problem, and get people to accept your alternate
> definition for your new thing as what will be considered as the
> "standard thing".
>
> This is what Russel showed about Naive Set Theory, and then Lempel and
> Ziv came up with a new basis which the community accepted as the new
> default meaning of "Set Theory" when used without a modifier.
>
> Until you can show that the Turing Computation theory has a similar
> level of problem and that Olcott Computation theory has an answer that
> people think is worth it, and the broad community has accepted it, You
> need to be explicit that your idea are NOT part of "Standard Computation
> Theory" but are only Olcott Computation Theory. (or even just
> Olcott-Halting).
>
> Note, one big problem with Olcott-Halting is it is NOT a property of a
> given machine, but of a machine-decider combination, which makes it not
> suitable as a property for most uses.
>
>
>>
>> That it is correct in every other case has lead you
>> astray. That no one has ever seen any case where they
>> differ makes it very difficult to accept the verified
>> fact that they do differ.
>
> Nope, until you convince the community that there is something wrong
> with currect computation theory, and that we need a new theory, that you
> can provide, your statement is just false.
>
>>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Nope, you don't get to change the meaning.
> PERIOD.
>
> You are just showing you are just an ignorant liar.
When you ONLY have dogma that goes against verified facts
the dogma loses.
The behavior of the input to H(D,D) specifies that the call
from the input to H(D,D) to H(D,D) *DOES NOT RETURN*
You can assume that it does return the same way that you
can assume that puppies are fifteen story office buildings.
--
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 19:36 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Boilerplate Reply |
| Message-ID | <v552qk$lkkb$12@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107582 |
On 6/21/24 7:11 PM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/21/2024 5:58 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/21/24 6:44 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> When cats are defined as dogs the definition is wrong.
>>> Likewise when the input to H(D,D) is defined as the
>>> behavior of D(D) *in the case where D calls H(D,D)*
>>
>> Nope. You can't change the definitions.
>>
>> If you think that somehow cats have been defined as dogs, then you
>> need to try to show that problem, and get people to accept your
>> alternate definition for your new thing as what will be considered as
>> the "standard thing".
>>
>> This is what Russel showed about Naive Set Theory, and then Lempel and
>> Ziv came up with a new basis which the community accepted as the new
>> default meaning of "Set Theory" when used without a modifier.
>>
>> Until you can show that the Turing Computation theory has a similar
>> level of problem and that Olcott Computation theory has an answer that
>> people think is worth it, and the broad community has accepted it, You
>> need to be explicit that your idea are NOT part of "Standard
>> Computation Theory" but are only Olcott Computation Theory. (or even
>> just Olcott-Halting).
>>
>> Note, one big problem with Olcott-Halting is it is NOT a property of a
>> given machine, but of a machine-decider combination, which makes it
>> not suitable as a property for most uses.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> That it is correct in every other case has lead you
>>> astray. That no one has ever seen any case where they
>>> differ makes it very difficult to accept the verified
>>> fact that they do differ.
>>
>> Nope, until you convince the community that there is something wrong
>> with currect computation theory, and that we need a new theory, that
>> you can provide, your statement is just false.
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Nope, you don't get to change the meaning.
>> PERIOD.
>>
>> You are just showing you are just an ignorant liar.
>
> When you ONLY have dogma that goes against verified facts
> the dogma loses.
WHAT "Verified facts" are you talking about?
Your unsupporte claims? those from the proven LIAR?
I speak from the "Dogma" of DEFINITION, which is BY DEFINITION a Truth,
The "Behavior" specified by the input, is the behavior of the direct
running of the program specified by the input, and any other claimed
behavior is an admission that you are just lyint (again).
Try to prove me wrong by showing any accepted source that says your
criteria, with your defintions, is a valid criteria for a Turing
Definition Halt Decider (which is the only kind generally accepted).
>
> The behavior of the input to H(D,D) specifies that the call
> from the input to H(D,D) to H(D,D) *DOES NOT RETURN*
HOW? Are you admitting that your H doesn't ever return an answer to
H(D,D) or is H not the required "Pure Function" that always does the
same thing for the same input.
>
> You can assume that it does return the same way that you
> can assume that puppies are fifteen story office buildings.
>
Nope, it comes from the DEFINITION of what a decider is.
I guess you think puppies can be fifteen story office buildings,
Boy are you STUPID.
I guess you are just admitting that you know nothing of what you talk about.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 18:27 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v55289$3cthh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107579 |
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*
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.
--
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 19:38 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v552tf$lkkb$13@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107583 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-21 22:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v55fn7$3irer$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107585 |
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.
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.
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.
--
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 04:24 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v55jl3$nhbb$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107586 |
Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:16:55 -0500 schrieb olcott: > 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: >>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d) >>>>>>>>>> will Halt. >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>> 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* >> >> 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. If H really is a decider, it returns. >> But that isn't the definition that we are using. > 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. Unlikely. Again, the simulation shouldn't change anything. > 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. But D is the same in either case?! > 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. The behaviour changes only because of the called H. -- 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 23:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v55k3f$3jl81$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107589 |
On 6/21/2024 11:24 PM, joes wrote:
> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:16:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> 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:
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d)
>>>>>>>>>>> will Halt.
>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>
>>>>>>> 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*
>>>
>>> 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.
> If H really is a decider, it returns.
>
>>> But that isn't the definition that we are using.
>
>> 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.
> Unlikely.
> Again, the simulation shouldn't change anything.
>
>> 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.
> But D is the same in either case?!
>
>> 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.
> The behaviour changes only because of the called H.
>
void DDD()
{
H0(DDD);
}
int main()
{
H0(DDD);
H1(DDD);
}
DDD correctly simulated by H1 halts.
DDD correctly simulated by H0 never halts.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 08:59 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Dogma -- other deciders |
| Message-ID | <v563q2$o4uv$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107590 |
Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 23:31:42 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/21/2024 11:24 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:16:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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:
>>>>>>>> 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"?
If it didn't return, H weren't a decider.
>>>>> 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.
>> If H really is a decider, it returns.
>>> 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.
>> But D is the same in either case?!
D has a certain behaviour. Of course it depends on the called decider,
which by construction should be the one deciding on it. If those are
different, nothing unusual happens and we get the correct result.
>>> 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.
Naturally. Deciding D (which calls H) with H1 is not the halting problem,
however (same with H deciding D1 which calls H1).
>> The behaviour changes only because of the called H.
I see you agree:
> void DDD()
> {
> H0(DDD);
> }
> int main()
> {
> H0(DDD);
> H1(DDD);
> }
> DDD correctly simulated by H1 halts.
> DDD correctly simulated by H0 never halts.
There is exactly one correct simulation, which corresponds to the direct
execution.
--
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 09:03 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) --- Dogma |
| Message-ID | <v56i37$onl3$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107590 |
On 6/22/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/21/2024 11:24 PM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:16:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> 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:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if M(d)
>>>>>>>>>>>> will Halt.
>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>> If H really is a decider, it returns.
>>
>>>> But that isn't the definition that we are using.
>>
>>> 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.
>> Unlikely.
>> Again, the simulation shouldn't change anything.
>>
>>> 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.
>> But D is the same in either case?!
>>
>>> 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.
>
>> The behaviour changes only because of the called H.
>>
>
> void DDD()
> {
> H0(DDD);
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> H0(DDD);
> H1(DDD);
> }
>
> DDD correctly simulated by H1 halts.
> DDD correctly simulated by H0 never halts.
>
>
And thus you prove that your criteria, "Correctly simulated by the
decider" is NOT a valid property of the input, because there is not a
mapping of (input) -> (output), but only a mapping of:
(input, decider) -> (output)
Thus, it is not a property of the input alone.
So, NOT a valid property to be a replacement for Halting.
Note, the problem is you are creating a SUBJECTIVE property when you
need an OBJECTIVE property. The fact we need to know who is being asked
to know what the right answer is makes the property subjective, and thus
not the sort of thing that the logical system talks about.
[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 | <v56iks$3or0r$6@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107600 |
On 6/22/2024 8:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 6/22/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>> On 6/21/2024 11:24 PM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:16:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> 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:
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> M(d)
>>>>>>>>>>>>> will Halt.
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>> If H really is a decider, it returns.
>>>
>>>>> But that isn't the definition that we are using.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> Unlikely.
>>> Again, the simulation shouldn't change anything.
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> But D is the same in either case?!
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>
>>> The behaviour changes only because of the called H.
>>>
>>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>> H0(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> H0(DDD);
>> H1(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> DDD correctly simulated by H1 halts.
>> DDD correctly simulated by H0 never halts.
>>
>>
>
> And thus you prove that your criteria, "Correctly simulated by the
> decider" is NOT a valid property of the input, because there is not a
> mapping of (input) -> (output), but only a mapping of:
>
> (input, decider) -> (output)
>
> Thus, it is not a property of the input alone.
>
> So, NOT a valid property to be a replacement for Halting.
>
> Note, the problem is you are creating a SUBJECTIVE property when you
> need an OBJECTIVE property. The fact we need to know who is being asked
> to know what the right answer is makes the property subjective, and thus
> not the sort of thing that the logical system talks about.
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 | <v56k4c$onl4$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107606 |
On 6/22/24 9:12 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 6/22/2024 8:03 AM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 6/22/24 12:31 AM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 6/21/2024 11:24 PM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 22:16:55 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> 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:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. H(M,d) is DEFINED (if it is correct) to determine if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> M(d)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will Halt.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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*
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>> If H really is a decider, it returns.
>>>>
>>>>>> But that isn't the definition that we are using.
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Unlikely.
>>>> Again, the simulation shouldn't change anything.
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>> But D is the same in either case?!
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>> The behaviour changes only because of the called H.
>>>>
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>> H0(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>> H0(DDD);
>>> H1(DDD);
>>> }
>>>
>>> DDD correctly simulated by H1 halts.
>>> DDD correctly simulated by H0 never halts.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> And thus you prove that your criteria, "Correctly simulated by the
>> decider" is NOT a valid property of the input, because there is not a
>> mapping of (input) -> (output), but only a mapping of:
>>
>> (input, decider) -> (output)
>>
>> Thus, it is not a property of the input alone.
>>
>> So, NOT a valid property to be a replacement for Halting.
>>
>> Note, the problem is you are creating a SUBJECTIVE property when you
>> need an OBJECTIVE property. The fact we need to know who is being
>> asked to know what the right answer is makes the property subjective,
>> and thus not the sort of thing that the logical system talks about.
>
> 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]
Page 6 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web