Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.theory > #118982
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.theory |
| Subject | Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP |
| Date | 2025-05-14 05:43 +0100 |
| Organization | Fix this later |
| Message-ID | <100172f$2ao7o$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (21 earlier) <1000vs5$29e7u$1@dont-email.me> <100101g$24gr3$14@dont-email.me> <10011b6$29e7u$4@dont-email.me> <10012le$24gr3$17@dont-email.me> <1001370$2a1j4$1@dont-email.me> |
On 14/05/2025 04:38, olcott wrote:
> On 5/13/2025 10:28 PM, dbush wrote:
>> On 5/13/2025 11:06 PM, olcott wrote:
>>> On 5/13/2025 9:44 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2025 10:41 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>> On 5/13/2025 8:56 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 9:52 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 8:38 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 9:35 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 8:26 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 9:16 PM, olcott wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/13/2025 8:03 PM, dbush wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope. Russell's Paradox was derived from the base
>>>>>>>>>>>> axioms of naive set theory, proving the whole system
>>>>>>>>>>>> was inconsistent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> In contrast, there is nothing in existing computation
>>>>>>>>>>>> theory that requires that a halt decider exists.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see you made no attempt to refute the above
>>>>>>>>>> statement. Unless you can show from the axioms of
>>>>>>>>>> computation theory that the following requirements can
>>>>>>>>>> be met, your argument has no basis:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of
>>>>>>>>>> instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H
>>>>>>>>>> that computes the following mapping:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when
>>>>>>>>>> executed directly
>>>>>>>>>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt
>>>>>>>>>> when executed directly
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> A halt decider doesn't exist
>>>>>>>>>>>>> for the same reason that the set of all sets
>>>>>>>>>>>>> that do not contain themselves does not exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> *As defined both were simply wrong-headed ideas*
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There's nothing wrong-headed about wanting to know if
>>>>>>>>>>>> any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y will halt when
>>>>>>>>>>>> executed directly.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Yes there is. I have proven this countless times.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That requirements are impossible to satisfy doesn't
>>>>>>>>>> make them wrong. It just makes them impossible to
>>>>>>>>>> satisfy, which is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It did with Russell's Paradox.
>>>>>>>>> ZFC rejected the whole foundation upon which
>>>>>>>>> RP was built.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ZFC did not solve some other Russell's Paradox
>>>>>>>>> it rejected the whole idea of RP as nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Unless you can show from the axioms of computation theory
>>>>>>>> that the following requirements can be met, your argument
>>>>>>>> has no basis:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Alternatively I can do what ZFC did and over-rule
>>>>>>> the whole foundation upon which the HP proofs are build.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You mean the assumption that the following requirements
>>>>>> (which are *not* part of the axioms of computation theory)
>>>>>> can be satisfied? The assumption that Linz and other proved
>>>>>> was false and that you *explicitly* agreed with?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The conventional halting problem proofs have your
>>>>> requirements as its foundation.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They have the *assumption* that the requirements can be met,
>>>> and via proof by contradiction show the assumption to be false.
>>>>
>>>> And the fact that the requirements can't be met is fine, just
>>>> like the the fact that these requirements can't be met is fine:
>>>>
>>>> A mythic number is a number N such that N > 5 and N < 2.
>>>
>>> We can also say that no computation can compute
>>> the square root of a dead rabbit. In none of these
>>> cases is computation actually limited.
>>>
>>> We could equally say that no whale can give
>>> birth to a pigeon. This places no actual limit
>>> on the behavior of whales. Whales were never
>>> meant to give birth to pigeons.
>>>
>>
>> And as was said before:
>>
>> On 5/5/2025 5:39 PM, olcott wrote:
>> > On 5/5/2025 4:31 PM, dbush wrote:
>> >> Strawman. The square root of a dead rabbit does not exist,
>> but the
>> >> question of whether any arbitrary algorithm X with input Y
>> halts when
>> >> executed directly has a correct answer in all cases.
>> >>
>> >
>> > It has a correct answer that cannot ever be computed
>>
>> This qualifies as both a non-rebuttal and your confirmation you
>> agree that Linz and others are correct that no algorithm exists
>> that satisfies the below requirements:
>>
>>
>> Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of
>> instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
>>
>> A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that
>> computes the following mapping:
>>
>> (<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
>> (<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when
>> executed directly
>>
>
> It is true that a TM either halts or does not halt.
>
> None-the-less the above requirements simply ignore
> that some inputs specify behavior that differs
> from the behavior of their direct execution.
And some inputs can be deduced to be impossible to satisfy.
> It is stupidly wrong to REQUIRE a correct sum()
> function to require sum(3,2) to report the sum of 5 + 7.
It is also wrong to require sum() to accurately report the sum
for all inputs. Given code of int sum(int x, int y) { return x +
y; } sum(INT_MAX, INT_MAX) will get the answer wrong because +
can't do what is expected of it.
In such circumstances, the C standard simply refuses to specify
what will happen and adopts a `que sera, sera' attitude --- can't
take a joke, shouldn't have joined.
The Halting Problem is slightly different. It proposes a specific
computation, a universal computation halting decider (call it H),
but in doing so demonstrates that with a single flip of H's
logical tail it produces a computation that simply can't be
computed. There can be no H.
Mr Olcott's response to this appears to be that we should allow H
to set aside impossible inputs in the pursuit of some kind of
meaningful answer.
What he fails to notice is that it isn't necessary to set
impossible inputs aside. Why not? Because they're impossible.
There is no need for H to cope with itself as input for the
excellent reason that H cannot be written.
As dbush rightly points out:
Given any algorithm (i.e. a fixed immutable sequence of
instructions) X described as <X> with input Y:
A solution to the halting problem is an algorithm H that computes
the following mapping:
(<X>,Y) maps to 1 if and only if X(Y) halts when executed directly
(<X>,Y) maps to 0 if and only if X(Y) does not halt when
executed directly
It has been known for 90 years that such a solution is
impossible. Attempting to dodge round this fact is as fruitless
as trying to construct a square with the same area as a given
circle by using only a finite number of steps with compass and
straightedge.
Of course, that doesn't stop people trying. We have a name for
such people.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Back to comp.theory | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-10 02:11 +0100
Re: What it would take... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-09 22:18 -0400
Re: What it would take... Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-05-10 04:04 +0000
Re: What it would take... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-10 08:50 -0400
Re: What it would take... Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-05-10 14:24 +0000
Re: What it would take... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-10 14:44 -0400
Re: What it would take... Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-05-10 20:05 +0000
Re: What it would take... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-10 10:07 -0500
Re: What it would take... "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-10 17:25 +0200
Re: What it would take... wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-05-10 23:35 +0800
Re: What it would take... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-10 10:46 -0500
Re: What it would take... wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-05-11 00:18 +0800
Re: What it would take... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-10 11:37 -0500
Re: What it would take... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-10 15:02 -0400
Re: What it would take... Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-11 12:37 +0300
Re: What it would take... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-10 15:01 -0400
Re: What it would take... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-05-12 18:21 +0100
Re: What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-12 19:38 +0100
Re: What it would take... Ben Bacarisse <ben@bsb.me.uk> - 2025-05-13 00:58 +0100
Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION? olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 19:16 -0500
Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION? dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 20:25 -0400
Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION? Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-12 22:27 -0400
Re: What it would take... TO GET MY REVIEWERS TO PAY COMPLETE ATTENTION? Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-13 12:39 +0300
Re: What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 03:26 +0100
How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 21:48 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 04:14 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 22:31 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 23:36 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 04:39 +0100
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 00:14 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 23:38 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 07:44 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-13 12:44 +0300
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 00:11 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 23:41 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 07:46 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 19:47 -0500
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 21:05 -0400
Re: How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-13 13:56 +0200
Re: What it would take... Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-05-13 04:23 +0100
Re: What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 04:37 +0100
Re: What it would take... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 22:38 -0500
Re: What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 04:41 +0100
Re: What it would take... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 22:44 -0500
Re: What it would take... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 00:17 -0400
Re: What it would take... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 23:14 -0500
Re: What it would take... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 00:34 -0400
Re: What it would take... Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 00:16 -0400
Re: What it would take... Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2025-05-13 12:49 +0300
Re: What it would take... André G. Isaak <agisaak@gm.invalid> - 2025-05-12 22:41 -0600
Re: What it would take... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 00:06 -0500
Re: What it would take... "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-13 13:54 +0200
Re: What it would take... Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-05-13 16:47 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 11:01 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 12:21 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 11:56 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 13:09 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 16:09 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:03 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 20:16 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:26 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 20:35 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:38 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 20:52 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:56 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:41 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:44 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:06 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 23:28 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 22:38 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 23:48 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 23:35 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-14 13:02 +0200
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:52 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:54 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 08:32 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 05:43 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 23:54 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 06:02 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 00:09 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 06:20 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 11:04 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 17:16 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 11:43 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 18:15 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 12:22 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 18:41 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 12:46 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 18:58 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 13:18 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 19:45 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 13:59 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 17:14 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:25 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-15 13:22 +0200
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-15 23:38 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:58 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-05-16 13:25 +0000
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 09:00 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-16 10:09 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-16 10:19 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-16 11:57 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-05-14 18:25 +0000
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP joes <noreply@example.org> - 2025-05-14 18:30 +0000
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:32 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric -- RP Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 21:14 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 21:10 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 18:06 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 13:12 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 19:00 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-05-13 19:20 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 02:49 +0800
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 15:52 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-14 12:59 +0200
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:58 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 16:54 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:35 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 16:16 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 22:28 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 16:49 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-14 12:56 +0200
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric dbush <dbush.mobile@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 21:05 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:41 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:32 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 16:44 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 12:17 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-14 18:32 +0100
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 12:35 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 11:22 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-14 12:53 +0200
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 07:43 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 10:26 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-14 23:23 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-14 23:14 -0500
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-15 07:19 -0400
Re: What it would take... People to address my points with reasoning instead of rhetoric Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org> - 2025-05-13 18:41 -0400
Re: What it would take... Mike Terry <news.dead.person.stones@darjeeling.plus.com> - 2025-05-13 04:05 +0100
Re: What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 04:23 +0100
Re: What it would take... Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-05-12 23:38 +0100
How the requirements that Professor Sipser agreed to are exactly met olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 17:47 -0500
Re: What it would take... wij <wyniijj5@gmail.com> - 2025-05-13 07:05 +0800
Re: What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 04:09 +0100
Re: What it would take... Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-05-13 18:28 +0000
Re: What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 19:37 +0100
Re: What it would take... Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-05-13 18:40 +0000
Re: What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 19:47 +0100
Re: What it would take... Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-05-13 18:53 +0000
Re: What it would take... Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2025-05-13 20:01 +0100
Re: What it would take... Mr Flibble <flibble@red-dwarf.jmc.corp> - 2025-05-13 19:07 +0000
Re: What it would take... Andy Walker <anw@cuboid.co.uk> - 2025-05-13 23:59 +0100
Re: What it would take... olcott <polcott333@gmail.com> - 2025-05-12 12:29 -0500
Re: What it would take... "Fred. Zwarts" <F.Zwarts@HetNet.nl> - 2025-05-13 13:48 +0200
csiph-web