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 8 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 19 Next page →
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 20:39 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: H(D,D) cannot even be asked about the behavior of D(D) |
| Message-ID | <v575pl$3sg5p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107538 |
Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: > On 6/21/2024 2:16 AM, Mikko wrote: >> On 2024-06-20 15:04:35 +0000, olcott said: >> >>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> >>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>>> >>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>> >>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present >>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>> reasoning is correct. >>> >>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way >>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it >>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking >>> for an error and finding none. >> >> If you can't convince the reviewers of a journal that your article is >> well thought and well written you cannot get it published in a >> respected journal. >> > > The trick is to get people that say I am wrong > to point out the exact mistake. When they really > try to do this they find no mistake and all of > their rebbutal was pure bluster with no actual basis. > It seems you do not even try to answer questions to show errors in the reasoning of your opponents, in order to protect yourself against finding no errors in their rebuttal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 13:47 -0500 |
| Subject | DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5767s$3soh6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107632 |
On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >> On 6/21/2024 2:16 AM, Mikko wrote: >>> On 2024-06-20 15:04:35 +0000, olcott said: >>> >>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>>>> >>>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>>> >>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot present >>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>>> reasoning is correct. >>>> >>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way >>>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it >>>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking >>>> for an error and finding none. >>> >>> If you can't convince the reviewers of a journal that your article is >>> well thought and well written you cannot get it published in a >>> respected journal. >>> >> >> The trick is to get people that say I am wrong >> to point out the exact mistake. When they really >> try to do this they find no mistake and all of >> their rebbutal was pure bluster with no actual basis. >> > > It seems you do not even try to answer questions to show errors in the > reasoning of your opponents, in order to protect yourself against > finding no errors in their rebuttal. I quit bothering to point out the strawman deception fake rebuttal and instead I just ignore the whole reply. If you change the subject away from DDD correctly emulated by H0 your reply will be ignored. When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly return. _DDD() [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 [00002182] 5d pop ebp [00002183] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] When we define H1 as identical to H0 except that DDD does not call H1 then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H1 that its call to H0(DDD) does return. This is the same behavior as the directly executed DDD(). -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 20:53 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v576k7$3sg5o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107634 |
Op 22.jun.2024 om 20:47 schreef olcott: > On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>> On 6/21/2024 2:16 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>> On 2024-06-20 15:04:35 +0000, olcott said: >>>> >>>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>>>> >>>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot >>>>>> present >>>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>>>> reasoning is correct. >>>>> >>>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way >>>>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it >>>>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking >>>>> for an error and finding none. >>>> >>>> If you can't convince the reviewers of a journal that your article is >>>> well thought and well written you cannot get it published in a >>>> respected journal. >>>> >>> >>> The trick is to get people that say I am wrong >>> to point out the exact mistake. When they really >>> try to do this they find no mistake and all of >>> their rebbutal was pure bluster with no actual basis. >>> >> >> It seems you do not even try to answer questions to show errors in the >> reasoning of your opponents, in order to protect yourself against >> finding no errors in their rebuttal. > > I quit bothering to point out the strawman deception fake > rebuttal and instead I just ignore the whole reply. If you > change the subject away from DDD correctly emulated by H0 > your reply will be ignored. > > When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation > is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see > that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to > H0(DDD) cannot possibly return. > > _DDD() > [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping > [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping > [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD > [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) > [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 > [00002182] 5d pop ebp > [00002183] c3 ret > Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] > > When we define H1 as identical to H0 except that DDD does not > call H1 then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H1 > that its call to H0(DDD) does return. This is the same behavior > as the directly executed DDD(). > Probably. Which shows that the simulation of H0 by H0 is incorrect. H1 shows that a correct simulation of H0 halts, but H0 is unable to simulate itself up to its final state. It aborts one cycle before the simulation would end, as is shown by H1.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-22 13:56 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v576oh$3soh6$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107638 |
On 6/22/2024 1:53 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 22.jun.2024 om 20:47 schreef olcott: >> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>>> On 6/21/2024 2:16 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>> On 2024-06-20 15:04:35 +0000, olcott said: >>>>> >>>>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot >>>>>>> present >>>>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>>>>> reasoning is correct. >>>>>> >>>>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way >>>>>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it >>>>>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking >>>>>> for an error and finding none. >>>>> >>>>> If you can't convince the reviewers of a journal that your article is >>>>> well thought and well written you cannot get it published in a >>>>> respected journal. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The trick is to get people that say I am wrong >>>> to point out the exact mistake. When they really >>>> try to do this they find no mistake and all of >>>> their rebbutal was pure bluster with no actual basis. >>>> >>> >>> It seems you do not even try to answer questions to show errors in >>> the reasoning of your opponents, in order to protect yourself against >>> finding no errors in their rebuttal. >> >> I quit bothering to point out the strawman deception fake >> rebuttal and instead I just ignore the whole reply. If you >> change the subject away from DDD correctly emulated by H0 >> your reply will be ignored. >> >> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation >> is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see >> that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to >> H0(DDD) cannot possibly return. >> >> _DDD() >> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >> [00002183] c3 ret >> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >> >> When we define H1 as identical to H0 except that DDD does not >> call H1 then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H1 >> that its call to H0(DDD) does return. This is the same behavior >> as the directly executed DDD(). >> > > Probably. Which shows that the simulation of H0 by H0 is incorrect. Incorrect and Strawman deception -- 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 15:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v577l9$onl4$12@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107640 |
On 6/22/24 2:56 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/22/2024 1:53 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 22.jun.2024 om 20:47 schreef olcott: >>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 6/21/2024 2:16 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>> On 2024-06-20 15:04:35 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 9:42 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> On 2024-06-20 05:15:37 +0000, olcott said: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 6/20/2024 12:04 AM, Mikko wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Sitll inclear whether you know what "termination analyzer" means. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I really don't care what you believe. >>>>>>>>> It is not about belief. >>>>>>>>> It is about correct reasoning. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No, it is not. It is about language maintenance. If you cannot >>>>>>>> present >>>>>>>> your reasoning in Common Language it does not matter whether your >>>>>>>> reasoning is correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I cannot possibly present my reasoning in a convincing way >>>>>>> to people that have already made up their mind and closed it >>>>>>> thus fail to trace through each step of this reasoning looking >>>>>>> for an error and finding none. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you can't convince the reviewers of a journal that your article is >>>>>> well thought and well written you cannot get it published in a >>>>>> respected journal. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The trick is to get people that say I am wrong >>>>> to point out the exact mistake. When they really >>>>> try to do this they find no mistake and all of >>>>> their rebbutal was pure bluster with no actual basis. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It seems you do not even try to answer questions to show errors in >>>> the reasoning of your opponents, in order to protect yourself >>>> against finding no errors in their rebuttal. >>> >>> I quit bothering to point out the strawman deception fake >>> rebuttal and instead I just ignore the whole reply. If you >>> change the subject away from DDD correctly emulated by H0 >>> your reply will be ignored. >>> >>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation >>> is the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see >>> that when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to >>> H0(DDD) cannot possibly return. >>> >>> _DDD() >>> [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping >>> [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping >>> [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD >>> [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) >>> [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 >>> [00002182] 5d pop ebp >>> [00002183] c3 ret >>> Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] >>> >>> When we define H1 as identical to H0 except that DDD does not >>> call H1 then we see that when DDD is correctly emulated by H1 >>> that its call to H0(DDD) does return. This is the same behavior >>> as the directly executed DDD(). >>> >> >> Probably. Which shows that the simulation of H0 by H0 is incorrect. > Incorrect and Strawman deception > Nope, Correct and shows the error in your logic. If you want to admit to be working on POOP, you can call it correct POOP deciding, but it isn't correct HALT deciding.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 09:22 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5e28t$11urb$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107634 |
Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: > When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the > semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is > correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly > return. Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. -- 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 | 2024-06-25 08:16 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5eg03$1ikpr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107777 |
On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott:
>
>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the
>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is
>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly
>> return.
> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate.
>
typedef void (*ptr)();
int H0(ptr P);
void DDD()
{
H0(DDD);
}
int main()
{
H0(DDD);
}
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
by H0 cannot possibly return.
Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the
only thing that I am willing to talk to you about.
--
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 | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 13:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5eho7$24l4$1@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #107788 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the >>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is >>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly >>> return. >> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. [ .... ] > The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated > by H0 cannot possibly return. > Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the > only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that when H0 is "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall seeing anybody arguing against that. So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think anybody else would argue against that, either. > -- > Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 09:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5einq$1j1no$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107791 |
On 6/25/2024 8:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: > >>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the >>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is >>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly >>>> return. >>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. > > [ .... ] > >> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >> by H0 cannot possibly return. > >> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. > > I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 > should terminate because it's a decider. We must go though my points one-at-a-time and in order otherwise we continue to talk in circles for 15 years as I did with Ben. We can get to Joes point only after my point is acknowledged as correct. I am unwilling to play head games with people that deny verified facts. I am unwilling to talk in endless circles. I must get 100% complete closure on each point before moving on to the next point. > You're saying that when H0 is > "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall seeing anybody > arguing against that. > Not at all. I am not tolerating talking about that point until after we have 100% closure on the prior point. > So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think anybody > else would argue against that, either. > I never said anything like that. It is all a matter of me not tolerating the slightest nuance of any head games what-so-ever. >> -- >> Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius >> hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer > -- 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 | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 14:32 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5ekeh$24l4$3@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #107792 |
[ Followup-To: set ] In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/25/2024 8:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the >>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is >>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly >>>>> return. >>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >> [ .... ] >>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 >> should terminate because it's a decider. > We must go though my points one-at-a-time and in order otherwise > we continue to talk in circles for 15 years as I did with Ben. Just who do you think you are? If we had to constrain ourselves to your intellectual level, progress in these threads would grind to a near complete halt. Remember, you're the one who's spent nearly 20 years on something a typical undergraduate grasps in a few hours at most, and you still don't get it. > We can get to Joes point only after my point is acknowledged as > correct. I am unwilling to play head games with people that > deny verified facts. I think Joes's point is more interesting than yours. > I am unwilling to talk in endless circles. I must get 100% > complete closure on each point before moving on to the next > point. You've been talking in endless circles on this newsgroup for many years, and that's not (mainly) because of other people's responses to you. >> You're saying that when H0 is "correctly" emulating, it won't >> terminate. I don't recall seeing anybody arguing against that. > Not at all. I am not tolerating talking about that point until > after we have 100% closure on the prior point. That's not an attitude likely to lead to fruitful discussions. >> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think anybody >> else would argue against that, either. > I never said anything like that. It is an implication of the point you're willing to discuss at the moment. > It is all a matter of me not tolerating the slightest nuance of any > head games what-so-ever. > -- > Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius > hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 16:28 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5er86$134dk$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107792 |
Am Tue, 25 Jun 2024 09:03:38 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/25/2024 8:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >> >>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is >>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when >>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot >>>>> possibly return. >>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 >> should terminate because it's a decider. Thanks. > We can get to Joes point only after my point is acknowledged as correct. It IS correct. >> You're saying that when H0 is "correctly" emulating, it won't >> terminate. I don't recall seeing anybody arguing against that. > Not at all. I am not tolerating talking about that point until after we > have 100% closure on the prior point. What other point? This has been your only content for the last month. >> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think >> anybody else would argue against that, either. > I never said anything like that. It is all a matter of me not tolerating > the slightest nuance of any head games what-so-ever. You said H0 doesn't terminate. -- 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 | 2024-06-25 12:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5eual$1lar1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107801 |
On 6/25/2024 11:28 AM, joes wrote: > Am Tue, 25 Jun 2024 09:03:38 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/25/2024 8:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>> >>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is >>>>>> the semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when >>>>>> DDD is correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot >>>>>> possibly return. >>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >>> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 >>> should terminate because it's a decider. > Thanks. > >> We can get to Joes point only after my point is acknowledged as correct. > It IS correct. > >>> You're saying that when H0 is "correctly" emulating, it won't >>> terminate. I don't recall seeing anybody arguing against that. >> Not at all. I am not tolerating talking about that point until after we >> have 100% closure on the prior point. > What other point? This has been your only content for the last month. > >>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think >>> anybody else would argue against that, either. >> I never said anything like that. It is all a matter of me not tolerating >> the slightest nuance of any head games what-so-ever. > You said H0 doesn't terminate. > *I never said that* _DDD() [00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping [00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping [00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD [0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call H0(DDD) [0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04 [00002182] 5d pop ebp [00002183] c3 ret Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183] The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 cannot possibly return. Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. -- 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 | 2024-06-25 20:25 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5f932$134dk$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107802 |
Am Tue, 25 Jun 2024 12:21:25 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/25/2024 11:28 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Tue, 25 Jun 2024 09:03:38 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/25/2024 8:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >> You said H0 doesn't terminate. > *I never said that* ... > The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated by H0 cannot > possibly return. -- Man kann mit dunklen Zahlen nicht rechnen. Für die eigentliche Mathematik sind sie vollkommen nutzlos. --Wolfgang Mückenheim
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 15:04 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <87jzidm83f.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #107791 |
Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > [ Followup-To: set ] > > In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: > >>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the >>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is >>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly >>>> return. >>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. > > [ .... ] > >> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >> by H0 cannot possibly return. > >> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. > > I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 > should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that when H0 is > "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall seeing anybody > arguing against that. > > So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think anybody > else would argue against that, either. He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years. It became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step simulator that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct result for the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"! PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 09:21 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Ben fails to understand computable functions |
| Message-ID | <v5ejou$1j1no$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107793 |
On 6/25/2024 9:04 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: > >> [ Followup-To: set ] >> >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >> >>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the >>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is >>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly >>>>> return. >>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >> >> [ .... ] >> >>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >> >>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >> >> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 >> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that when H0 is >> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall seeing anybody >> arguing against that. >> >> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think anybody >> else would argue against that, either. > > He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years. It > became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the > mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step simulator > that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was > detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct result for > the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what H(H_Hat(), > H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"! > > PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is. > *Ben fails to sufficiently understand Computable Functions* Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a function is computable if there exists an algorithm that can do the job of the function, i.e. *given an input of the function domain* *it can return the corresponding output* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function -- 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 | 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Ben fails to understand computable functions |
| Message-ID | <v5frvl$14bcm$5@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107796 |
On 6/25/24 10:21 AM, olcott wrote: > On 6/25/2024 9:04 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: >> >>> [ Followup-To: set ] >>> >>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>> >>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the >>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when >>>>>> DDD is >>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly >>>>>> return. >>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >>> >>> [ .... ] >>> >>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>> >>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >>> >>> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 >>> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that when H0 is >>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall seeing >>> anybody >>> arguing against that. >>> >>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think anybody >>> else would argue against that, either. >> >> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years. It >> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the >> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step simulator >> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was >> detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct result for >> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what H(H_Hat(), >> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"! >> >> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is. >> > > *Ben fails to sufficiently understand Computable Functions* No, Peter Olcott fails to understand what he is talking about. There is no requirement that 'Halting' even BE a computable function, and in fact has been proven not to be one. So, an argument based on it being one, starts off with a LIE. > Computable functions are the formalized analogue of > the intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that > a function is computable if there exists an algorithm > that can do the job of the function, i.e. > > *given an input of the function domain* > *it can return the corresponding output* > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 14:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 |
| Message-ID | <v5el8c$24l4$4@news.muc.de> |
| In reply to | #107793 |
Hi, Ben. Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: >> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the >>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is >>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly >>>>> return. >>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >> [ .... ] >>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 >> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that when H0 is >> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall seeing anybody >> arguing against that. >> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think anybody >> else would argue against that, either. > He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years. It > became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the > mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step simulator > that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was > detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct result for > the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what H(H_Hat(), > H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"! > PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is. I think it's important for (relative) newcomers to the newsgroup to become aware of this. Each one of them is trying to help PO improve his level of learning. They will eventually give up, as you and I have done, recognising (as Mike Terry, in particular, has done) that enriching PO's intellect is a quite impossible task. What's the betting he'll respond to this post with his usual short sequence of x86 assembly code together with a demand to recognise something or other as non-terminating? > -- > Ben. -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 12:45 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5evoi$1lgoi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107798 |
On 6/25/2024 9:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> Hi, Ben.
>
> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes:
>
>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott:
>
>>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is the
>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when DDD is
>>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly
>>>>>> return.
>>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate.
>
>>> [ .... ]
>
>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated
>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return.
>
>>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the
>>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about.
>
>>> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0
>>> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that when H0 is
>>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall seeing anybody
>>> arguing against that.
>
>>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think anybody
>>> else would argue against that, either.
>
>> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years. It
>> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the
>> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step simulator
>> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was
>> detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct result for
>> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what H(H_Hat(),
>> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"!
>
>> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is.
>
> I think it's important for (relative) newcomers to the newsgroup to
> become aware of this. Each one of them is trying to help PO improve his
> level of learning. They will eventually give up, as you and I have
> done, recognising (as Mike Terry, in particular, has done) that
> enriching PO's intellect is a quite impossible task.
>
> What's the betting he'll respond to this post with his usual short
> sequence of x86 assembly code together with a demand to recognise
> something or other as non-terminating?
>
>> --
>> Ben.
>
<MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D
until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never
stop running unless aborted then
H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D
specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations.
</MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022>
On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H
> (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines
> that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted.
>
> He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The
> wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H
> (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are.
>
Ben thinks that I tricked professor Sipser into agreeing
with something that he did not fully understand.
*The real issue is that no one here sufficiently understands*
*the highlighted portion of the following definition*
Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the
intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a
function is computable if there exists an algorithm
that can do the job of the function, i.e.
*given an input of the function domain*
*it can return the corresponding output*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function
--
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 | 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5frvn$14bcm$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107804 |
On 6/25/24 1:45 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/25/2024 9:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >> Hi, Ben. >> >> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: >> >>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >> >>>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation is >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when >>>>>>> DDD is >>>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly >>>>>>> return. >>>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >> >>>> [ .... ] >> >>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >> >>>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >> >>>> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 >>>> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that when H0 is >>>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall seeing >>>> anybody >>>> arguing against that. >> >>>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think >>>> anybody >>>> else would argue against that, either. >> >>> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years. It >>> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the >>> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step simulator >>> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was >>> detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct result for >>> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what H(H_Hat(), >>> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"! >> >>> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is. >> >> I think it's important for (relative) newcomers to the newsgroup to >> become aware of this. Each one of them is trying to help PO improve his >> level of learning. They will eventually give up, as you and I have >> done, recognising (as Mike Terry, in particular, has done) that >> enriching PO's intellect is a quite impossible task. >> >> What's the betting he'll respond to this post with his usual short >> sequence of x86 assembly code together with a demand to recognise >> something or other as non-terminating? >> >>> -- >>> Ben. >> > > <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> > If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D > until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never > stop running unless aborted then > > H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D > specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. > </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> > > On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H > > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines > > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. > > > > He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The > > wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H > > (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are. > > > > Ben thinks that I tricked professor Sipser into agreeing > with something that he did not fully understand. > > *The real issue is that no one here sufficiently understands* > *the highlighted portion of the following definition* > > Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the > intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a > function is computable if there exists an algorithm > that can do the job of the function, i.e. > > *given an input of the function domain* > *it can return the corresponding output* > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function > > But only if the function is, in fact, computable. Since Halting isn't, you can't use that fact.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-25 21:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 -- Ben agrees that Sipser approved criteria is met |
| Message-ID | <v5ft1p$1uc3o$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107823 |
On 6/25/2024 8:47 PM, Richard Damon wrote: > On 6/25/24 1:45 PM, olcott wrote: >> On 6/25/2024 9:46 AM, Alan Mackenzie wrote: >>> Hi, Ben. >>> >>> Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>>> Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> writes: >>> >>>>> In comp.theory olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> On 6/25/2024 4:22 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Am Sat, 22 Jun 2024 13:47:24 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> On 6/22/2024 1:39 PM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>>>>>>> Op 21.jun.2024 om 15:21 schreef olcott: >>> >>>>>>>> When we stipulate that the only measure of a correct emulation >>>>>>>> is the >>>>>>>> semantics of the x86 programming language then we see that when >>>>>>>> DDD is >>>>>>>> correctly emulated by H0 that its call to H0(DDD) cannot possibly >>>>>>>> return. >>>>>>> Yes. Which is wrong, because H0 should terminate. >>> >>>>> [ .... ] >>> >>>>>> The call from DDD to H0(DDD) when DDD is correctly emulated >>>>>> by H0 cannot possibly return. >>> >>>>>> Until you acknowledge this is true, this is the >>>>>> only thing that I am willing to talk to you about. >>> >>>>> I think you are talking at cross purposes. Joes's point is that H0 >>>>> should terminate because it's a decider. You're saying that when >>>>> H0 is >>>>> "correctly" emulating, it won't terminate. I don't recall seeing >>>>> anybody >>>>> arguing against that. >>> >>>>> So you're saying, in effect, H0 is not a decider. I don't think >>>>> anybody >>>>> else would argue against that, either. >>> >>>> He's been making exactly the same nonsense argument for years. It >>>> became crystal clear a little over three years ago when he made the >>>> mistake of posting the pseudo-code for H -- a step by step simulator >>>> that stopped simulating (famously on line 15) when some pattern was >>>> detected. He declared false (not halting) to be the correct result for >>>> the halting computation H(H_Hat(), H_Hat()) because of what H(H_Hat(), >>>> H_Hat()) would do "if line 15 were commented out"! >>> >>>> PO does occasionally make it clear what the shell game is. >>> >>> I think it's important for (relative) newcomers to the newsgroup to >>> become aware of this. Each one of them is trying to help PO improve his >>> level of learning. They will eventually give up, as you and I have >>> done, recognising (as Mike Terry, in particular, has done) that >>> enriching PO's intellect is a quite impossible task. >>> >>> What's the betting he'll respond to this post with his usual short >>> sequence of x86 assembly code together with a demand to recognise >>> something or other as non-terminating? >>> >>>> -- >>>> Ben. >>> >> >> <MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >> If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D >> until H correctly determines that its simulated D would never >> stop running unless aborted then >> >> H can abort its simulation of D and correctly report that D >> specifies a non-halting sequence of configurations. >> </MIT Professor Sipser agreed to ONLY these verbatim words 10/13/2022> >> >> On 10/14/2022 7:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> > I don't think that is the shell game. PO really /has/ an H >> > (it's trivial to do for this one case) that correctly determines >> > that P(P) *would* never stop running *unless* aborted. >> > >> > He knows and accepts that P(P) actually does stop. The >> > wrong answer is justified by what would happen if H >> > (and hence a different P) where not what they actually are. >> > >> >> Ben thinks that I tricked professor Sipser into agreeing >> with something that he did not fully understand. >> >> *The real issue is that no one here sufficiently understands* >> *the highlighted portion of the following definition* >> >> Computable functions are the formalized analogue of the >> intuitive notion of algorithms, in the sense that a >> function is computable if there exists an algorithm >> that can do the job of the function, i.e. >> >> *given an input of the function domain* >> *it can return the corresponding output* >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computable_function >> >> > > But only if the function is, in fact, computable. > > Since Halting isn't, you can't use that fact. If I ask you: What time is it? and you do not tell me the answer to the question hidden in my mind "What did you have for dinner?" We cannot say that you provided the wrong answer when you tell me what time it is. When we ask H to tell us whether its actual input halts H can only answer that P correctly simulated by H will not halt. H cannot answer the question hidden in your mind. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web