Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| From | olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.math |
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated |
| Date | 2025-12-03 10:27 -0600 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <10gpod2$3fcr0$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (25 earlier) <10gjrjd$181h8$1@dont-email.me> <10gk2o7$1aq0o$5@dont-email.me> <10gma81$251t7$1@dont-email.me> <10gms7n$2bvm8$1@dont-email.me> <b6664773-0477-4785-bd2b-7147f9782336@iki.fi> |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On 12/3/2025 5:34 AM, Mikko wrote:
> olcott kirjoitti 2.12.2025 klo 16.14:
>> On 12/2/2025 3:07 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>> olcott kirjoitti 1.12.2025 klo 14.47:
>>>> On 12/1/2025 4:45 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 29.11.2025 klo 18.38:
>>>>>> On 11/29/2025 3:27 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 28.11.2025 klo 16.46:
>>>>>>>> On 11/28/2025 2:14 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Chris M. Thomasson kirjoitti 27.11.2025 klo 9.58:
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 11:49 PM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 26.11.2025 klo 17.17:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/26/2025 4:01 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> olcott kirjoitti 17.11.2025 klo 15.31:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/17/2025 2:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-17 00:12:14 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/16/2025 3:18 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-15 16:12:49 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/15/2025 4:15 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-14 15:00:09 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/14/2025 3:21 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-13 15:50:37 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/13/2025 2:48 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-12 12:54:12 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/12/2025 1:09 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-11 13:04:13 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/11/2025 2:59 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-10 14:48:00 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2025 3:43 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-09 12:51:57 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/9/2025 4:22 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-08 13:36:06 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/8/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-07 12:57:48 +0000, olcott said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/7/2025 2:05 AM, Mikko wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2025-11-06 20:48:02 +0000, olcott
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> D simulated by H cannot possibly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reach its own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulated final halt state.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is merely a defect in H and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> irrelevanto to the semantic and other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> properties of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's a stupid statement.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stupid is better than false.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is stupidly false because you didn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bother
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay any attention at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A statement about me is off topic in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comp.theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that calls H(D) that never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reaches
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the simulated "return" statement final halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state of D because D calls H(D) in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recursive
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have you ever done any actual programming?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> A question about me is off topic in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> comp.theory. But yes, I did yesterday.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *This is my key foundational point*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int H(char* P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int D()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = H(D);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The above is in test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate.exe implements a C interpreter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate test.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> runs the interpreter on the above source file
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from the command prompt.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Any program that does not correctly tell
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether test.c halts is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a halt decider. A program that gives an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect answer is not even
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a partial halt decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> When this interpreter sees the call to H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it calls itself with the text body of D.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to C semanttics it should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulate H(D), either simultating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instructions of H or simulating the return
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from H(D) with the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> returned value as H(D) would return if
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> executed, or do whatever H would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do if H would not not return.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is not the behavior that the input to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H(D) specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator.exe simulates Test.c. This
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulates D that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calls H(D) that the simulator recognizes as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is the behavour C semantics specifies.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> According to C semantics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> any other behavour that produces the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result is equally valid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So D remains stuck in recursive simulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> never being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to complete its first statement before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calling H(D)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> again and again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If that happens then H does not return and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> therefore is not a decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe my work is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe the definition of "decider" is over your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> typedef int (*ptr)();
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int HHH(ptr P);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int DD()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (Halt_Status)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HERE: goto HERE;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> return Halt_Status;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> HHH(DD);
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> People here have consistently lied about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DD simulated by HHH reaching its own "return"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement final halt state for three years.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You yourself have not told the truth about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this even once.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That seems to confirm that the definition of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "decider" is over your head.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am just talking at the level of the execution
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trace of C functions. D does specify non-halting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior to its termination analyzer.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The termination problem is not about specifying "to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its termination
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> analyzer". Instead the termination problem is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a program terminates every time when used as it was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designed to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The halting problem requires that a halt decider
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly report on the behavior of its caller
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and no halt decider can even see its actual caller.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Every halt decider is required to report on the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour asked about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And this is incorrect when it has not access to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the behavior that it is asked about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it is not. The solution to the halting problem must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> include the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary access. Conversely, a proof that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> necessary access is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> impossible is sufficient to prove that halting problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is unsolvable.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Reporing on the behavior of DD() executed from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> main requires HHH to report on information
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is not contained in its input thus it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> incorrect to require HHH to report on that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That HHH fails to meet the requirements does not mean
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> requirements are wrong. It merely meas that HHH is not a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> halt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decider.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That HHH fails to meet the requirements by itself does
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not mean that the requirements are wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> state on the basis that this [finite string] input
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That the information that HHH is required to report
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on simply is not contained in its input is what makes
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the requirements wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, it merely means that the designer ot HHH has failed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specify the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> encoding rules so that the input contains the full
>>>>>>>>>>>>> specification of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In other words you are trying to get away with
>>>>>>>>>>>> disagreeing with the semantics of the x86 language
>>>>>>>>>>>> or the semantics of the C programing language.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You are the one who disagrees with the x86 processors about
>>>>>>>>>>> the x86
>>>>>>>>>>> language semantics. When an x86 processor executes a program
>>>>>>>>>>> it executes
>>>>>>>>>>> according to the x86 semantics. When DD is executed according
>>>>>>>>>>> to the x86
>>>>>>>>>>> semantics it halts. Anybody who says that DD specifies a non-
>>>>>>>>>>> halting
>>>>>>>>>>> behaviour disagrees with the x86 semantics.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> But, DD can halt or not halt, right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When Olcott uses the name DD he means the particular program in
>>>>>>>>> his
>>>>>>>>> GitHub repository except when he wants to deceive with
>>>>>>>>> equivocation.
>>>>>>>>> The DD is Olcotts repository halts.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am doing this in the C programming language so that
>>>>>>>> every detail can be concretely specified and thus no
>>>>>>>> important details are simply abstracted away.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm/blob/master/Halt7.c
>>>>>>>> HHH on line 1081
>>>>>>>> DD on line 1355
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The DD on line 1355 is the DD I mentioned above and whicn is listed
>>>>>>> below. HHH always means the HHH on line 1081 except when otherwise
>>>>>>> stated. HHH(DD) means the HHH on line 1081 is called with the
>>>>>>> pointer
>>>>>>> to the DD on line 1355 as the argument. THat call returns 0, which
>>>>>>> means that DD does not halt.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HHH(DD)==0 has nothing to do with DD executed from main.
>>>>>
>>>>> True. It would if HHH were a halting decider but HHH isn't.
>>>>
>>>> If you carefully studied all of what I said you
>>>> would see that the halting problem is a category
>>>> error because it directly contradicts one of the
>>>> foundational axioms of computer science.
>>>
>>> Any statement that a problem contradicts anything is a categoryerror.
>>
>> Flibble was the first one to use this term that I am aware of.
>
> Do you mean the term "category error"? It is a well known term
> though many authors prefer "category mistake" for the same
> meaning.
>
Flibble was the first one to use the term category
error applied to the halting problem. Later on
after I explained all of the details in a dialogue
both ChatGPT and Claude AI applied this same term.
They did this on the basis that the halting problem
required a halt decider to report on behavior that
is different than the behavior that its actual input
actually specifies.
They were able to directly assess this behavior
themselves by actually performing a simulation of DD by
HHH according to the semantics of the x86 language.
> Anyway, any claim that a problem contradict something is
> a category error because the meanings of "problem" and
> "contradict" are not compatible.
>
When the halting problem contradicts the definition
of a Turing machine decider
Turing machine deciders only compute a mapping from
their [finite string] inputs to an accept or reject
state on the basis that this [finite string] input
specifies or fails to specify a semantic or syntactic
property.
--
Copyright 2025 Olcott
My 28 year goal has been to make
"true on the basis of meaning" computable.
This required establishing a new foundation
for correct reasoning.
Back to sci.math | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-14 09:00 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-17 07:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-26 12:01 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 09:17 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-26 10:29 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 18:35 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 13:55 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 14:58 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 21:47 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 15:53 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 22:19 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 16:48 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:00 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-26 23:55 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:20 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 00:39 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 18:51 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:02 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:24 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:42 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 02:00 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:37 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 04:15 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:31 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 06:51 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 08:59 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:16 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:17 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 07:41 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 07:40 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:00 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:39 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 19:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-11-27 01:59 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 20:26 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 04:19 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 22:39 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-27 09:49 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-11-26 23:58 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:14 +0200
The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:46 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 10:59 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-29 11:27 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-29 10:38 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-29 14:58 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-01 12:45 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 06:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 14:29 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 08:38 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 14:45 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 08:57 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:06 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:19 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:26 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:29 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:31 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:39 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 15:48 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 09:55 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2025-12-01 16:00 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 10:27 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2025-12-01 16:41 -0800
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 18:24 -0600
Olcott is provably correct --- no one can correctly refute this olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 19:54 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-02 11:07 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-02 08:14 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-03 13:34 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-03 10:27 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-04 11:17 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-04 08:15 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-12-06 11:23 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-12-06 06:47 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- updated Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-12-06 17:26 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-27 09:21 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-27 10:40 -0500
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:37 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Kaz Kylheku <643-408-1753@kylheku.com> - 2025-11-27 18:24 +0000
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-11-28 10:18 +0200
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-11-28 08:52 -0600
Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2025-11-28 11:01 -0500
csiph-web