Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #107463 > unrolled thread
| Started by | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-06-19 19:00 -0500 |
| Last post | 2024-06-30 12:30 +0300 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 197 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.theory
195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-19 19:00 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-20 10:09 +0200
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 09:12 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-20 18:37 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-20 17:45 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-20 21:55 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-21 09:44 +0200
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 08:01 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 10:02 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 09:44 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 11:25 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 12:04 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:09 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 12:22 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 13:40 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 12:55 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 14:00 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 13:22 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 14:39 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 13:51 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 15:11 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-21 14:23 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-21 15:54 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 20:31 +0000
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 16:22 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-26 08:11 +0000
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 08:32 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-22 11:27 +0200
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 08:11 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 09:38 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-22 14:41 +0000
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 10:53 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-22 20:50 +0200
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 13:53 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 15:22 -0400
DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 14:45 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 16:10 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 19:01 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-22 20:14 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-22 22:28 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 07:28 -0400
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 08:38 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-23 14:23 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-23 11:45 +0200
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 08:30 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-24 11:43 +0200
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 13:16 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 ---Boilerplate Reply Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 19:23 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-23 11:22 +0300
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-23 08:17 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-24 10:37 +0300
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 08:48 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-24 19:36 +0000
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-24 16:04 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 19:43 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-25 14:08 +0200
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 08:12 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-25 16:13 +0200
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 12:29 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-25 20:19 +0200
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 13:26 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-25 20:49 +0200
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 13:51 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-25 21:17 +0200
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 14:30 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-26 10:01 +0200
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 08:07 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-27 11:38 +0200
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 12:21 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-28 10:06 +0200
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 09:12 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-28 16:43 +0200
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 10:01 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-28 17:19 +0200
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD incorrectly simulated by HHH joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-28 16:28 +0000
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD incorrectly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 13:24 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD incorrectly simulated by HHH joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-28 19:25 +0000
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD incorrectly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 16:03 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD incorrectly simulated by HHH Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-28 21:26 +0000
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD incorrectly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 16:52 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 08:30 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-27 11:45 +0200
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 12:30 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-28 10:23 +0200
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 09:27 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-28 16:53 +0200
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 10:04 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-28 17:22 +0200
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 10:32 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-28 17:48 +0200
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 11:54 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-28 20:22 +0200
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 13:31 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-28 20:48 +0200
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 14:01 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-29 10:52 +0200
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 21:51 -0500
Re: simulation trace of DDD joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-06-30 08:58 +0000
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 08:34 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-28 13:14 +0000
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 10:25 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-28 16:26 +0000
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 12:05 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-28 17:41 +0000
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 12:53 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-28 19:18 +0000
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 14:28 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-06-29 19:44 +0000
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 15:03 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-29 16:11 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-06-30 08:42 +0000
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 12:25 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 15:31 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-06-30 20:16 +0000
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-01 10:27 +0200
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 07:57 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-01 16:27 +0200
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 09:35 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-01 15:52 +0000
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 10:56 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-01 20:14 +0200
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 13:29 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-02 10:45 +0200
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-01 20:01 +0200
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 13:25 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-02 10:39 +0200
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-01 15:48 +0000
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 20:38 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 20:39 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 22:03 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-06-30 12:42 +0200
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-30 12:20 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-01 10:23 +0200
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 07:59 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2024-07-01 16:25 +0200
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 09:31 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 20:38 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 20:38 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 20:36 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 22:24 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 21:34 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 22:44 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 22:14 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-01 23:21 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-01 22:34 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 07:30 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 07:39 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 18:44 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 17:58 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 19:03 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 18:09 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 21:07 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 20:28 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 21:32 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 20:42 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 21:48 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH --- clueless olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 20:54 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH --- clueless Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 21:59 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH --- Richard proves that he is clueless olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 21:09 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH --- Richard proves that he is clueless Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 22:23 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH --- Richard proves that he is clueless olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 21:35 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH --- Richard proves that he is clueless Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 22:46 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH --- Richard proves that he is clueless olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-07-02 22:10 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH --- Richard proves that he is clueless Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 23:26 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH --- Richard proves that he is clueless Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-07-02 23:27 -0400
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-03 03:55 +0000
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-02 09:42 +0300
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH joes <noreply@example.org> - 2024-07-02 08:06 +0000
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-07-02 09:40 +0300
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-26 11:10 +0300
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 07:55 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-26 13:40 +0000
DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 09:04 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-26 16:03 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 11:24 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Python <python@invalid.org> - 2024-06-26 18:30 +0200
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure Alan Mackenzie <acm@muc.de> - 2024-06-26 19:43 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 15:10 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure --- addendum olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 15:30 -0500
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-26 20:55 +0000
Re: DDD correctly emulated by H0 --- Why Lie? -- Repeat until Closure olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-26 16:15 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-27 09:34 +0300
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-27 12:07 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-28 10:17 +0300
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-28 10:28 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-29 10:23 +0300
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-29 21:50 -0500
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-30 12:12 +0300
Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-30 08:34 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 21:47 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 21:12 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-25 22:20 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 joes <noreply@example.com> - 2024-06-25 20:44 +0000
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2024-06-25 16:38 -0500
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2024-06-24 19:24 -0400
Re: 195 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HH0 Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2024-06-30 12:30 +0300
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
| From | joes <noreply@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-28 13:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <v5mcvo$1cgj0$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107936 |
Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:30:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> void DDD()
> {
> H0(DDD);
> }
>
> int main()
> {
> H0(Infinite_Loop);
> H0(Infinite_Recursion);
> H0(DDD);
> }
> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
> termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as non-halting
> by returning 0 to its caller.
To the caller DDD, which then returns to its own caller H0, which returns
„halting” to main… hold on.
> Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior that their
> finite string input specifies thus H0 must report that DDD correctly
> emulated by H0 remains stuck in recursive simulation.
H0 must not report on itself, only on DDD. Which you’ve proven halts.
We don’t care how H0 deviates (i.e. is incorrect) in its simulation.
That would be main {H0(H0(DDD))}.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-28 10:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <v5mklg$3cibm$7@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107959 |
On 6/28/2024 8:14 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:30:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>
>> void DDD()
>> {
>> H0(DDD);
>> }
>>
>> int main()
>> {
>> H0(Infinite_Loop);
>> H0(Infinite_Recursion);
>> H0(DDD);
>> }
>
>> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
>> termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as non-halting
>> by returning 0 to its caller.
> To the caller DDD, which then returns to its own caller H0, which returns
> „halting” to main… hold on.
>
>> Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior that their
>> finite string input specifies thus H0 must report that DDD correctly
>> emulated by H0 remains stuck in recursive simulation.
> H0 must not report on itself, only on DDD. Which you’ve proven halts.
> We don’t care how H0 deviates (i.e. is incorrect) in its simulation.
> That would be main {H0(H0(DDD))}.
https://liarparadox.org/HHH(DDD)_Full_Trace.pdf
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly return.
The behavior of the directly executed DDD() is irrelevant
because that is not the behavior of the input. Deciders
compute the mapping from their actual finite string input
to an output by a sequence of finite string transformations.
In this case the sequence is the line-by-line execution
trace of the behavior of DDD correctly emulated by HHH.
The behavior of this input must include and cannot ignore
the recursive emulation specified by the fact that DDD is
calling its own emulator. That people think they can just
pretend that this is not happening is ridiculous.
--
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 | 2024-06-28 16:26 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <v5mo8a$1d3t3$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107972 |
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/28/2024 8:14 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:30:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
>>> termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as
>>> non-halting by returning 0 to its caller.
>> To the caller DDD, which then returns to its own caller H0, which
>> returns „halting” to main… hold on.
Where do you disagree?
>>> Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior that
>>> their finite string input specifies thus H0 must report that DDD
>>> correctly emulated by H0 remains stuck in recursive simulation.
>> H0 must not report on itself, only on DDD. Which you’ve proven halts.
>> We don’t care how H0 deviates (i.e. is incorrect) in its simulation.
>> That would be main {H0(H0(DDD))}.
> The behavior of the directly executed DDD() is irrelevant because that
> is not the behavior of the input.
What is the difference here?
> Deciders compute the mapping from
> their actual finite string input to an output by a sequence of finite
> string transformations.
And should get the right answer.
> In this case the sequence is the line-by-line execution trace of the
> behavior of DDD correctly emulated by HHH.
No, the sequence is the behaviour of DDD, period.
> The behavior of this input must include and cannot ignore the recursive
> emulation specified by the fact that DDD is calling its own emulator.
Yes, and the behaviour of H0 is that it produces the exact same behaviour
as DDD.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-28 12:05 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <v5mqge$3e4fd$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107977 |
On 6/28/2024 11:26 AM, joes wrote:
> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/28/2024 8:14 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:30:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>
>>>> When this is construed as non-halting criteria then simulating
>>>> termination analyzer H0 is correct to reject these inputs as
>>>> non-halting by returning 0 to its caller.
>>> To the caller DDD, which then returns to its own caller H0, which
>>> returns „halting” to main… hold on.
> Where do you disagree?
>
>>>> Simulating termination analyzers must report on the behavior that
>>>> their finite string input specifies thus H0 must report that DDD
>>>> correctly emulated by H0 remains stuck in recursive simulation.
>>> H0 must not report on itself, only on DDD. Which you’ve proven halts.
>>> We don’t care how H0 deviates (i.e. is incorrect) in its simulation.
>>> That would be main {H0(H0(DDD))}.
>
>> The behavior of the directly executed DDD() is irrelevant because that
>> is not the behavior of the input.
> What is the difference here?
>
>> Deciders compute the mapping from
>> their actual finite string input to an output by a sequence of finite
>> string transformations.
> And should get the right answer.
>
>> In this case the sequence is the line-by-line execution trace of the
>> behavior of DDD correctly emulated by HHH.
> No, the sequence is the behaviour of DDD, period.
>
>> The behavior of this input must include and cannot ignore the recursive
>> emulation specified by the fact that DDD is calling its own emulator.
> Yes, and the behaviour of H0 is that it produces the exact same behaviour
> as DDD.
>
You don't seem to understand basic facts.
_DDD()
[00002172] 55 push ebp ; housekeeping
[00002173] 8bec mov ebp,esp ; housekeeping
[00002175] 6872210000 push 00002172 ; push DDD
[0000217a] e853f4ffff call 000015d2 ; call HHH(DDD)
[0000217f] 83c404 add esp,+04
[00002182] 5d pop ebp
[00002183] c3 ret
Size in bytes:(0018) [00002183]
The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are
correctly emulated by any pure function x86 emulator
HHH cannot possibly return.
That you assume that it does against the facts is ridiculous.
--
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 | 2024-06-28 17:41 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <v5msjt$1d3t3$9@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107980 |
Thanks for leaving the unanswered questions in place, though I’d rather
have you answer them.
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:05:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/28/2024 11:26 AM, joes wrote:
>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/28/2024 8:14 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:30:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> To the caller DDD, which then returns to its own caller H0, which
>>>> returns „halting” to main… hold on.
>> Where do you disagree?
>>>> H0 must not report on itself, only on DDD. Which you’ve proven halts.
>>>> We don’t care how H0 deviates (i.e. is incorrect) in its simulation.
>>>> That would be main {H0(H0(DDD))}.
Do you see what I mean?
>>> The behavior of the directly executed DDD() is irrelevant because that
>>> is not the behavior of the input.
>> What is the difference here?
Isn’t the input DDD?
>>> In this case the sequence is the line-by-line execution trace of the
>>> behavior of DDD correctly emulated by HHH.
>> No, the sequence is the behaviour of DDD, period.
The input is not HHH(DDD). See above.
>>> The behavior of this input must include and cannot ignore the
>>> recursive emulation specified by the fact that DDD is calling its own
>>> emulator.
>> Yes, and the behaviour of H0 is that it produces the exact same
>> behaviour as DDD.
Because it is a simulator.
> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly emulated
> by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly return.
> That you assume that it does against the facts is ridiculous.
I don’t. A simulator doesn’t even need to return. That’s not in question.
A decider however must.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-28 12:53 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <v5mtba$3elj0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107981 |
On 6/28/2024 12:41 PM, joes wrote:
> Thanks for leaving the unanswered questions in place, though I’d rather
> have you answer them.
>
> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:05:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>> On 6/28/2024 11:26 AM, joes wrote:
>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>> On 6/28/2024 8:14 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:30:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>
>>>>> To the caller DDD, which then returns to its own caller H0, which
>>>>> returns „halting” to main… hold on.
>>> Where do you disagree?
>
>>>>> H0 must not report on itself, only on DDD. Which you’ve proven halts.
>>>>> We don’t care how H0 deviates (i.e. is incorrect) in its simulation.
>>>>> That would be main {H0(H0(DDD))}.
> Do you see what I mean?
>
>>>> The behavior of the directly executed DDD() is irrelevant because that
>>>> is not the behavior of the input.
>>> What is the difference here?
> Isn’t the input DDD?
>
>>>> In this case the sequence is the line-by-line execution trace of the
>>>> behavior of DDD correctly emulated by HHH.
>>> No, the sequence is the behaviour of DDD, period.
> The input is not HHH(DDD). See above.
>
>>>> The behavior of this input must include and cannot ignore the
>>>> recursive emulation specified by the fact that DDD is calling its own
>>>> emulator.
>>> Yes, and the behaviour of H0 is that it produces the exact same
>>> behaviour as DDD.
> Because it is a simulator.
>
>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly emulated
>> by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly return.
>> That you assume that it does against the facts is ridiculous.
> I don’t. A simulator doesn’t even need to return. That’s not in question.
> A decider however must.
That you keep trying to ignore the fact that DDD calls HHH(DDD)
in recursive simulation is your huge mistake.
--
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 | 2024-06-28 19:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <v5n2ah$1d3t3$10@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107982 |
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:53:46 -0500 schrieb olcott:
> On 6/28/2024 12:41 PM, joes wrote:
>> Thanks for leaving the unanswered questions in place, though I’d rather
>> have you answer them.
I rest my case.
>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:05:18 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>> On 6/28/2024 11:26 AM, joes wrote:
>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>> On 6/28/2024 8:14 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>>> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:30:38 -0500 schrieb olcott:
>>>>>> To the caller DDD, which then returns to its own caller H0, which
>>>>>> returns „halting” to main… hold on.
Why doesn’t the first recursive H return?
>>>>>> H0 must not report on itself, only on DDD. Which you’ve proven
>>>>>> halts.
>>>>>> We don’t care how H0 deviates (i.e. is incorrect) in its
>>>>>> simulation. That would be main {H0(H0(DDD))}.
Can you see the difference?
>>>>> The behavior of the directly executed DDD() is irrelevant because
>>>>> that is not the behavior of the input.
What is the input?
>>>>> In this case the sequence is the line-by-line execution trace of the
>>>>> behavior of DDD correctly emulated by HHH.
>>>> No, the sequence is the behaviour of DDD, period.
>> The input is not HHH(DDD). See above.
>>>>> The behavior of this input must include and cannot ignore the
>>>>> recursive emulation specified by the fact that DDD is calling its
>>>>> own emulator.
>>>> Yes, and the behaviour of H0 is that it produces the exact same
>>>> behaviour as DDD.
>>> The call from DDD to HHH(DDD) when N steps of DDD are correctly
>>> emulated by any pure function x86 emulator HHH cannot possibly return.
>>> That you assume that it does against the facts is ridiculous.
>> I don’t. A simulator doesn’t even need to return. That’s not in
>> question. A decider however must.
> That you keep trying to ignore the fact that DDD calls HHH(DDD)
> in recursive simulation is your huge mistake.
WTF? I just agreed with you.
Please reply to my other points.
--
Am Fri, 21 Jun 2024 12:22:04 -0500 schrieb olcott: the logical
impossibility of specifying a halt decider H that correctly reports the
halt status of input D that is defined to do the opposite of whatever
value that H reports.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-28 14:28 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <v5n2sk$3fm1k$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107988 |
On 6/28/2024 2:18 PM, joes wrote: > Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:53:46 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/28/2024 12:41 PM, joes wrote: >>> Thanks for leaving the unanswered questions in place, though I’d rather >>> have you answer them. > I rest my case. > >>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:05:18 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/28/2024 11:26 AM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 6/28/2024 8:14 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:30:38 -0500 schrieb olcott: > >>>>>>> To the caller DDD, which then returns to its own caller H0, which >>>>>>> returns „halting” to main… hold on. > Why doesn’t the first recursive H return? > HHH(DDD) simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) that proves to the outer directly executed HHH that it must abort and reject. Alternatively HHH(DDD) here: simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) that goto here: until out-of-memory error. -- Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-29 19:44 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <v5po6i$1h5u1$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #107990 |
Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 14:28:20 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/28/2024 2:18 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:53:46 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/28/2024 12:41 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Thanks for leaving the unanswered questions in place, though I’d >>>> rather have you answer them. >>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:05:18 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/28/2024 11:26 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 6/28/2024 8:14 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:30:38 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> To the caller DDD, which then returns to its own caller H0, which >>>>>>>> returns „halting” to main… hold on. >> Why doesn’t the first recursive H return? Question still not answered. > HHH(DDD) > simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) > that proves to the outer directly executed HHH that it must abort and > reject. How does it do that? If it doesn’t halt, the outer one doesn’t either (since it is an instance of the same code, with the same input). If the outer one halts, it doesn’t need to abort the inner one (which then also halts). > Alternatively HHH(DDD) > here: > simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) that goto here: until out-of-memory > error. So it does not abort? -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-29 15:03 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <v5pp9m$2jk8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108012 |
On 6/29/2024 2:44 PM, joes wrote: > Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 14:28:20 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/28/2024 2:18 PM, joes wrote: >>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:53:46 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/28/2024 12:41 PM, joes wrote: >>>>> Thanks for leaving the unanswered questions in place, though I’d >>>>> rather have you answer them. >>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:05:18 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 6/28/2024 11:26 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> On 6/28/2024 8:14 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:30:38 -0500 schrieb olcott: > >>>>>>>>> To the caller DDD, which then returns to its own caller H0, which >>>>>>>>> returns „halting” to main… hold on. >>> Why doesn’t the first recursive H return? > Question still not answered. > >> HHH(DDD) >> simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) >> that proves to the outer directly executed HHH that it must abort and >> reject. > How does it do that? Over your head. I have explained it too many times and you just can't get it. Technically it is called detecting a repeating state. I don't mean "New Jersey, New Jersey". -- 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 | 2024-06-29 16:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <v5pppu$1gd9e$6@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108013 |
On 6/29/24 4:03 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/29/2024 2:44 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 14:28:20 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/28/2024 2:18 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:53:46 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/28/2024 12:41 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Thanks for leaving the unanswered questions in place, though I’d >>>>>> rather have you answer them. >>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:05:18 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 6/28/2024 11:26 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 6/28/2024 8:14 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:30:38 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> >>>>>>>>>> To the caller DDD, which then returns to its own caller H0, which >>>>>>>>>> returns „halting” to main… hold on. >>>> Why doesn’t the first recursive H return? >> Question still not answered. >> >>> HHH(DDD) >>> simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) that simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) >>> that proves to the outer directly executed HHH that it must abort and >>> reject. > >> How does it do that? > Over your head. I have explained it too many times > and you just can't get it. > > Technically it is called detecting a repeating state. > I don't mean "New Jersey, New Jersey". > And you do it incorrectly, as the state doesn't ACTUALLY repeat, as the emulator over the machine is conditional, which changes a lot of the rules you are trying to use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-30 08:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <v5r5p4$1irrf$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108013 |
Am Sat, 29 Jun 2024 15:03:02 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/29/2024 2:44 PM, joes wrote: >> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 14:28:20 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/28/2024 2:18 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:53:46 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/28/2024 12:41 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Thanks for leaving the unanswered questions in place, though I’d >>>>>> rather have you answer them. >>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:05:18 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 6/28/2024 11:26 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 6/28/2024 8:14 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:30:38 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> >>>>>>>>>> To the caller DDD, which then returns to its own caller H0, >>>>>>>>>> which returns „halting” to main… hold on. >>>> Why doesn’t the first recursive H return? >> Question still not answered. It should abort, just like the outer one. >>> HHH(DDD) >>> simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) that simulates DDD that calls >>> HHH(DDD) >>> that proves to the outer directly executed HHH that it must abort and >>> reject. >> How does it do that? > Over your head. I have explained it too many times and you just can't > get it. No, I mean: why does the inner simulator repeat instead of aborting, the same as the outer one does? > Technically it is called detecting a repeating state. Yeah, I know. My point is: all recursive calls both enter and detect a repeating state. > I don't mean "New Jersey, New Jersey". Please don’t regard me as dumber than I am. -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-30 12:25 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <v5s4f4$jvgt$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108025 |
On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, joes wrote: > Am Sat, 29 Jun 2024 15:03:02 -0500 schrieb olcott: >> On 6/29/2024 2:44 PM, joes wrote: >>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 14:28:20 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> On 6/28/2024 2:18 PM, joes wrote: >>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:53:46 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>> On 6/28/2024 12:41 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>> Thanks for leaving the unanswered questions in place, though I’d >>>>>>> rather have you answer them. >>>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:05:18 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>> On 6/28/2024 11:26 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>> On 6/28/2024 8:14 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:30:38 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> >>>>>>>>>>> To the caller DDD, which then returns to its own caller H0, >>>>>>>>>>> which returns „halting” to main… hold on. >>>>> Why doesn’t the first recursive H return? >>> Question still not answered. > It should abort, just like the outer one. > The outer HHH meets its abort criteria one execution trace sooner than the next inner one because HHH needs to see two complete execution traces before its abort criteria has been met. As soon as the outer HHH sees the inner one complete one full execution trace then the outer one has its abort criteria. >>>> HHH(DDD) >>>> simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) that simulates DDD that calls >>>> HHH(DDD) >>>> that proves to the outer directly executed HHH that it must abort and >>>> reject. >>> How does it do that? >> Over your head. I have explained it too many times and you just can't >> get it. > No, I mean: why does the inner simulator repeat instead of aborting, > the same as the outer one does? > >> Technically it is called detecting a repeating state. > Yeah, I know. My point is: all recursive calls both enter and detect > a repeating state. > The inner ones always see one less execution trace than the next outer one, thus could only meet their abort criteria after they have already been aborted. >> I don't mean "New Jersey, New Jersey". > Please don’t regard me as dumber than I am. > -- 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 | 2024-06-30 15:31 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <v5sbpv$1kfbr$3@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108039 |
On 6/30/24 1:25 PM, olcott wrote: > On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Sat, 29 Jun 2024 15:03:02 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/29/2024 2:44 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 14:28:20 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/28/2024 2:18 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:53:46 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 6/28/2024 12:41 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Thanks for leaving the unanswered questions in place, though I’d >>>>>>>> rather have you answer them. >>>>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:05:18 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 6/28/2024 11:26 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/28/2024 8:14 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:30:38 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To the caller DDD, which then returns to its own caller H0, >>>>>>>>>>>> which returns „halting” to main… hold on. >>>>>> Why doesn’t the first recursive H return? >>>> Question still not answered. >> It should abort, just like the outer one. >> > The outer HHH meets its abort criteria one execution trace > sooner than the next inner one because HHH needs to see > two complete execution traces before its abort criteria > has been met. > > As soon as the outer HHH sees the inner one complete one > full execution trace then the outer one has its abort > criteria. > >>>>> HHH(DDD) >>>>> simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) that simulates DDD that calls >>>>> HHH(DDD) >>>>> that proves to the outer directly executed HHH that it must abort and >>>>> reject. >>>> How does it do that? >>> Over your head. I have explained it too many times and you just can't >>> get it. > >> No, I mean: why does the inner simulator repeat instead of aborting, >> the same as the outer one does? >> >>> Technically it is called detecting a repeating state. >> Yeah, I know. My point is: all recursive calls both enter and detect >> a repeating state. >> > > The inner ones always see one less execution trace > than the next outer one, thus could only meet their > abort criteria after they have already been aborted. No, the inner ones, a BEHAVIORS see just as much, as behavior doesn't stop just because the emulation did. The part of the behavior emulated is less, but that isn't what matters, as that leads to improper subjective questions, not the objective questions that are required. YOU have even pointed out the errors of making questions subjective and the correct answer being a function of who you ask it to. > >>> I don't mean "New Jersey, New Jersey". >> Please don’t regard me as dumber than I am. >> >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-06-30 20:16 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <v5sefq$1kji0$1@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108039 |
Am Sun, 30 Jun 2024 12:25:55 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Sat, 29 Jun 2024 15:03:02 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/29/2024 2:44 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 14:28:20 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/28/2024 2:18 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:53:46 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 6/28/2024 12:41 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Thanks for leaving the unanswered questions in place, though I’d >>>>>>>> rather have you answer them. >>>>>> Why doesn’t the first recursive H return? >> It should abort, just like the outer one. > The outer HHH meets its abort criteria one execution trace sooner than > the next inner one because HHH needs to see two complete execution > traces before its abort criteria has been met. But it sees that the inner one would abort, so it can let it end normally. > As soon as the outer HHH sees the inner one complete one full execution > trace then the outer one has its abort criteria. Same as the inner does, so the inner one does not in fact repeat. >> No, I mean: why does the inner simulator repeat instead of aborting, >> the same as the outer one does? Repeat. >> My point is: all recursive calls both enter and detect a >> repeating state. > The inner ones always see one less execution trace than the next outer > one, thus could only meet their abort criteria after they have already > been aborted. Why are they aborted? -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-01 10:27 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <v5tp92$vsqr$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108039 |
Op 30.jun.2024 om 19:25 schreef olcott: > On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, joes wrote: >> Am Sat, 29 Jun 2024 15:03:02 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>> On 6/29/2024 2:44 PM, joes wrote: >>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 14:28:20 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>> On 6/28/2024 2:18 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:53:46 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>> On 6/28/2024 12:41 PM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>> Thanks for leaving the unanswered questions in place, though I’d >>>>>>>> rather have you answer them. >>>>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 12:05:18 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>> On 6/28/2024 11:26 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 10:25:36 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6/28/2024 8:14 AM, joes wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Thu, 27 Jun 2024 12:30:38 -0500 schrieb olcott: >>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> To the caller DDD, which then returns to its own caller H0, >>>>>>>>>>>> which returns „halting” to main… hold on. >>>>>> Why doesn’t the first recursive H return? >>>> Question still not answered. >> It should abort, just like the outer one. >> > The outer HHH meets its abort criteria one execution trace > sooner than the next inner one because HHH needs to see > two complete execution traces before its abort criteria > has been met. > > As soon as the outer HHH sees the inner one complete one > full execution trace then the outer one has its abort > criteria. > >>>>> HHH(DDD) >>>>> simulates DDD that calls HHH(DDD) that simulates DDD that calls >>>>> HHH(DDD) >>>>> that proves to the outer directly executed HHH that it must abort and >>>>> reject. >>>> How does it do that? >>> Over your head. I have explained it too many times and you just can't >>> get it. > >> No, I mean: why does the inner simulator repeat instead of aborting, >> the same as the outer one does? >> >>> Technically it is called detecting a repeating state. >> Yeah, I know. My point is: all recursive calls both enter and detect >> a repeating state. >> > > The inner ones always see one less execution trace > than the next outer one, thus could only meet their > abort criteria after they have already been aborted. > Which indicates that they were aborted too soon, showing that the emulation was incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-01 07:57 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <v5u94l$12udb$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108071 |
On 7/1/2024 3:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: > Op 30.jun.2024 om 19:25 schreef olcott: >> On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, joes wrote: >> >>> No, I mean: why does the inner simulator repeat instead of aborting, >>> the same as the outer one does? >>> >>>> Technically it is called detecting a repeating state. >>> Yeah, I know. My point is: all recursive calls both enter and detect >>> a repeating state. >>> >> >> The inner ones always see one less execution trace >> than the next outer one, thus could only meet their >> abort criteria after they have already been aborted. >> > > Which indicates that they were aborted too soon, showing that the > emulation was incorrect. Unless the outer HHH aborts its simulation after some fixed number of correct emulations or none of the HHH ever aborts and HHH never stops running. There is no passing the guy in front of you if you both continue to run at the exact same speed, he will always be ahead of you. -- 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 | 2024-07-01 16:27 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <v5uec2$12qkb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108080 |
Op 01.jul.2024 om 14:57 schreef olcott: > On 7/1/2024 3:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 30.jun.2024 om 19:25 schreef olcott: >>> On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, joes wrote: >>> >>>> No, I mean: why does the inner simulator repeat instead of aborting, >>>> the same as the outer one does? >>>> >>>>> Technically it is called detecting a repeating state. >>>> Yeah, I know. My point is: all recursive calls both enter and detect >>>> a repeating state. >>>> >>> >>> The inner ones always see one less execution trace >>> than the next outer one, thus could only meet their >>> abort criteria after they have already been aborted. >>> >> >> Which indicates that they were aborted too soon, showing that the >> emulation was incorrect. > > Unless the outer HHH aborts its simulation after some > fixed number of correct emulations or none of the HHH > ever aborts and HHH never stops running. But that does not make the result of the abort correct. Not aborting will loop infinitely. Aborting will abort too soon. Both cases are incorrect. > > There is no passing the guy in front of you if you both > continue to run at the exact same speed, he will always > be ahead of you. > But shooting his tyres is also incorrect.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-01 09:35 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <v5uesa$145ld$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #108084 |
On 7/1/2024 9:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
> Op 01.jul.2024 om 14:57 schreef olcott:
>> On 7/1/2024 3:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
>>> Op 30.jun.2024 om 19:25 schreef olcott:
>>>> On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, joes wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> No, I mean: why does the inner simulator repeat instead of aborting,
>>>>> the same as the outer one does?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Technically it is called detecting a repeating state.
>>>>> Yeah, I know. My point is: all recursive calls both enter and detect
>>>>> a repeating state.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The inner ones always see one less execution trace
>>>> than the next outer one, thus could only meet their
>>>> abort criteria after they have already been aborted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which indicates that they were aborted too soon, showing that the
>>> emulation was incorrect.
>>
>> Unless the outer HHH aborts its simulation after some
>> fixed number of correct emulations or none of the HHH
>> ever aborts and HHH never stops running.
>
> But that does not make the result of the abort correct.
> Not aborting will loop infinitely.
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 IS NECESSARILY CORRECT TO ABORT
THEN H IS NECESSARILY CORRECT TO ABORT
THEN H IS NECESSARILY CORRECT TO ABORT
> Aborting will abort too soon. Both
> cases are incorrect.
>
It doesn't seem like you care about the truth.
>>
>> There is no passing the guy in front of you if you both
>> continue to run at the exact same speed, he will always
>> be ahead of you.
>>
>
> But shooting his tyres is also incorrect.
--
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | joes <noreply@example.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-07-01 15:52 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: 197 page execution trace of DDD correctly simulated by HHH |
| Message-ID | <v5ujbj$1na1q$2@i2pn2.org> |
| In reply to | #108086 |
Am Mon, 01 Jul 2024 09:35:54 -0500 schrieb olcott: > On 7/1/2024 9:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >> Op 01.jul.2024 om 14:57 schreef olcott: >>> On 7/1/2024 3:27 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote: >>>> Op 30.jun.2024 om 19:25 schreef olcott: >>>>> On 6/30/2024 3:42 AM, joes wrote: >>> Unless the outer HHH aborts its simulation after some fixed number of >>> correct emulations or none of the HHH ever aborts and HHH never stops >>> running. >> But that does not make the result of the abort correct. >> Not aborting will loop infinitely. > If simulating halt decider H correctly simulates its input D until > H correctly determines that its simulated D would never stop > running unless aborted If. D does stop running though, because the H that it calls aborts the recursive emulation in order to be a decider. -- Am Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:52:17 -0500 schrieb olcott: Objectively I am a genius.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.theory
csiph-web