Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
| Subject | Re: The halting problem is incorrect two different ways --- faking ignorance |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory, sci.logic, comp.ai.philosophy, sci.math |
| References | (22 earlier) <10ff84e$s7dk$4@dont-email.me> <10g6j5r$9aql$1@dont-email.me> <10g75m9$gf3b$3@dont-email.me> <10g8vr5$16p4g$1@dont-email.me> <10g9qa3$1h4d5$1@dont-email.me> |
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
| Message-ID | <4i_VQ.76647$YX2e.6335@fx14.iad> (permalink) |
| Organization | Forte - www.forteinc.com |
| Date | 2025-11-27 10:40 -0500 |
Cross-posted to 4 groups.
On 11/27/25 10:21 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 11/27/2025 1:49 AM, 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.
>>
>
> The DD that halts is not the same DD that is
> an input to HHH(DD). The input to HHH(DD)
> specifies non-halting behavior that HHH
> recognizes and terminates.
Then somebody is lying.
As DD is supposed to call HHH with a representation of itself.
>
> Certainly you are no so ignorant that you
> honestly believe that the caller of a function
> is exactly one-and-the-same-thing as an
> argument to this same function.
>
But it can be the representation of it.
The fact that you are so stupid as to not understand the nature of
representation doesn't make the concept wrong, it just makes you wrong.
All you are doing is proving how ignorant and stupid you are, and that
you don't care about truth, but are just a pathological liar.
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